Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

Papua New Guinea

Sir William van Straubenzee: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has any plans to seek to pay an early visit to Papua New Guinea.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Ray Whitney): My right hon. and learned Friend has no present plans to do so.

Sir William van Straubenzee: I hope that our right hon. and learned Friend and some of his junior Ministers will have the opportunity of visiting that delightful country, to which some of us on both sides of the House recently had the opportunity of going. Will my hon. Friend direct his attention to the remarkable investment in the oil palm, with strong Commonwealth Development Corporation support, with particular reference to the anxiety that has been expressed about the possible increased tariff by the EC, which would have deleterious effects on the industry of Papua New Guinea?

Mr. Whitney: I take note of what my hon. Friend said about the prospect of ministerial visits to Papua New Guinea. I assure him that I share the concern to which he referred about the proposed imposition of levies by the European Community, a concern which is shared by other member states.

Mr. Tom Clarke: I was one of the members of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association delegation that was ably led by the hon. Member for Wokingham (Sir W. van Straubenzee). In the event of such a visit, will the Minister review the Government's attitude to overseas development? In particular, will he consider giving some support to the British Council in Indonesia, which is doing a first-class job and should be given more encouragement?

Mr. Whitney: I take it that the hon. Gentleman is referring to Papua New Guinea. We shall look at the proposal, and also at the question of British aid to Papua New Guinea, which aid at present goes through a number of multinational agencies, such as the European Development Fund, the Asian Development Bank and the Commonwealth Development Corporation.

Chile

Mr. Anderson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government on political and military cooperation with Chile.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Geoffrey Howe): Our cooperation in these fields reflects the normal range of diplomatic relations we maintain with Chile.

Mr. Anderson: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that no negotiations are in progress or in prospect for the sale of HMS Hermes, given the estate of play on other arms sales such as HMS Antrim, the Jaguars, and the Sea Eagles? How can we in Britain influence the United States of America over its arms sales to Argentina when we are seen to be so eager to sell arms to the most repressive regime in that area, and the regime with the highest indebtedness?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The two aspects are completely different, in particular because Argentina has still not offered a formal cessation of hostilities. Chile is no threat to us and has defence preoccupations of her own. Negotiations are continuing on the sale of HMS Antrim to Chile, but no sale has been concluded. Chile is one of a number of countries which have expressed an interest in purchasing Jaguar aircraft when they become surplus to our requirements. HMS Hermes remains in service with the Royal Navy and no decision has been reached on her future after she pays off. As to arms sales in general, we maintain normal relationships with Chile and will continue not to supply weapons that are likely, in our judgment, to be used for internal repression.

Mr. Lawrence: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that those of us in the Bow Group who have just returned from a visit to Chile have seen for ourselves a marked improvement in human rights and a development towards democracy there? Will my right hon. and learned Friend encourage those helpful moves by a somewhat closer attitude towards Chile than has so far been demonstrated?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for conveying to me information arising from his recent visit. As I said in my original reply, we have maintained the normal range of diplomatic relations with Chile. In the course of such relations we have made clear our condemnation of violations of human rights when they have occured. We are doing everything that we can to encourage the restoration of democracy in Chile by peaceful means. I am much encouraged by what my hon. and learned Friend said about that.

Mr. Nellist: Would the Foreign Secretary like to reconsider his reply to the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) about human rights, bearing in mind that the war tribunal in Chile has been reconvened and is trying some workers? Is he aware that the jury of the tribunal is handpicked and that defence lawyers are not allowed to cross-question evidence, but are allowed only to make a statement? In the light of that, how can the Foreign Secretary continue to justify the sale of arms to a regime which is as despicable as the Argentine junta?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: There are conflicting views about the matter and it is our function to maintain the right


balance between them. We welcome progress when it takes place. However, that does not prevent us from making representations such as I have made to the Chilean Foreign Minister and the Chilean Ambassador about human rights issues when they arise. I understand that the Chilean Supreme Court has ordered a temporary suspension of the war tribunal and that it has been invited to rule on the constitutionality of the law under which the tribunal sits.

Kampuchea

Mr. George Robertson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government on the recognition of a Government of Kampuchea.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Richard Luce): It remains our view that there are no authorities in Cambodia with which we can deal as a Government.

Mr. Robertson: What conceivable justification can there be for the Government continuing to support the United Nations recognition of the coalition that includes the mass murderer Pol Pot as the representative of Kampuchea? Will the Government reconsider their stance with regard to bilateral aid, bearing in mind that such aid is urgently needed by the long-suffering people of Kampuchea?

Mr. Luce: As the hon. Gentleman knows, in 1979 we withdrew recognition from the Pol Pot Government and accepted the recommendations of the United Nations Credentials Committee that it should give credentials to the three main component parts of the resistance coalition. The Government face two alternatives, neither of which is perfect. The alternative to supporting the resistance coalition is supporting the occupation of Cambodia by 150,000 Vietnamese troops. That would be wholly wrong. We gave £500,000 this year to multilateral bodies which help Cambodians who cross the border and need support, most of which is medical.

Mr. Bowen Wells: Although I accept my hon. Friend's explanation of the difficulties in which we find ourselves in relation to Kampuchea, may I ask him two questions —[HON. MEMBERS: "One question."]—one question, in two parts? Is it not right that we normally recognise Governments who are the de facto Governments of their countries? Does my hon. Friend agree that the de facto Government in Kampuchea is that of Heng Samrin? If such recognition should take place, however distasteful it might be, we could begin to assist those who are suffering seriously from human rights abuses and deprivation in that country.

Mr. Luce: One criterion that we must take into account is whether a Government have effective control over all the territory of a country. Another factor at the moment, however, is that if the 150,000 Vietnamese troops were not in Cambodia that Government would have virtually no control. I cannot believe that it is right to support the existence of Vietnamese troops in Cambodia.

Hong Kong

Mr. Hal Miller: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will report on progress in the negotiations with Peking over the future of Hong Kong.

Mr. Geoffrey Howe: A more detailed phase of the talks between the British and Chinese Governments on Hong Kong's future began in July. The sixth round in this phase was held on 14 and 15 November in Peking. Both sides agreed that it was useful and constructive. The next round is taking place today and tomorrow in Peking.

Mr. Miller: In view of the uncertainty in some quarters in Hong Kong because of the length of the negotiations and the need to keep them confidential, can my right hon. and learned Friend say what measures have been taken to maintain morale in Hong Kong? Has consideration been given to the form of test whereby any agreement reached should be acceptable to the people of Hong Kong?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: On my hon. Friend's latter point, as has been made plain throughout the discussions, the objective is to keep in close touch with the views of the people of Hong Kong. One of our aims is to find a settlement which is acceptable to Hong Kong as well as to Britain and China. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the importance of confidence. It was with that in mind that the Governor of Hong Kong made it clear in a speech to the Legislative Council earlier this autumn that the Government intend to continue to invest vigorously in the future of its territory and its development. In late September, and again on 15 October, the Hong Kong Government took certain steps to stabilise the Hong Kong dollar and abolished the local tax paid on Hong Kong dollar deposits.

Mr. Ashdown: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the Government bear a substantial responsibility for the future of the territory of Hong Kong and for its people, many of whom fled there to find sanctuary? Does he agree also that the answer to the problem might have international as well as bilateral ramifications and that the time to start talking about them is now?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The Government certainly have a substantial responsibility for the people in the territory of Hong Kong. That consideration is firmly in our minds and in the minds of those who are involved in the talks with the Chinese Government.

Sir Paul Bryan: To what extent are the district boards being used as a method of keeping in touch with the opinions of the people of Hong Kong?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: They are one set of institutions through which we are trying to maintain contact with the opinion of the people of Hong Kong. There are many other means.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Can it not be said that the belligerence that the Prime Minister has shown in some statements has prejudiced the possibility of a real settlement of the problem? By making such statements, has she not unsettled the Chinese when making their public statements, with the result that the Hong Kong exchange has been adversely affected?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman's observation is neither accurate nor helpful. The agreed aim of the


talks is to maintain the stability and prosperity of Hong Kong. We hope to achieve that through the talks, which we hope will lead to suitable arrangements to that end.

Sir Peter Blaker: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that any agreement that is reached by the Governments of Britain and China about the future of Hong Kong after 1997 will have to be submitted to the House for approval? Is he aware that he will have the support of the House for an agreement that ensures that the people of Hong Kong are able to continue to enjoy their traditional way of life?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his observations. As we have made clear from the outset, the arrangements for the future of Hong Kong should be acceptable to the people of Hong Kong, the Chinese Government and Parliament.

Mr. Jim Callaghan: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the veil of secrecy that surrounds the negotiations should be torn down and that agreed communiqués from the Peking Government and our Government following each round of talks would go a long way to alleviate the anxiety of ordinary people in Hong Kong about their future?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am afraid that I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's advice as to the right way in which to conduct the negotiations. The issues are complex and are bound to be considered over a significant period of time. I am sure that it is right, as has been agreed by both Governments, that the discussions should be conducted in confidence.

Spain (British Holidaymakers)

Mr. Hayward: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will draw up plans to deal with British hooligans and vandals on holiday in Spanish resorts next summer.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I very much deplore any cases of hooliganism by British tourists abroad, but the question of controlling the behaviour of holidaymakers and tourists is, of course, a matter for the local authorities.

Mr. Hayward: Will my right hon. and learned Friend please ensure that any efforts by consuls in different parts of Europe next summer are concentrated on people who suffer illness or injury, rather than on those who get themselves into difficulties through their own actions?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I wish that it were in my power to ensure that. Certainly it would be far better if the work of our consuls were directed in that fashion. Unhappily, a minority of British tourists—no doubt they are not alone—embark on incidents of hooliganism and do great damage to the reputation of this country.

Ida Nudel

Mr. Woodall: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will raise again with the Soviet authorities the case of Ida Nudel who has been waiting 12 years for permission to leave the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): We will continue to take suitable opportunities to raise this case with the Soviet authorities.

Mr. Woodall: Is the Minister aware that during the past few weeks reports have been received to the effect that Ida Nudel is not receiving the letters sent to her by her family and friends living abroad? Does that not constitute a breach of the universal postal comvention? Will he seek to have this matter placed on the agenda of the next Universal Postal Congress, which is to be held in Hamburg next year?

Mr. Rifkind: We shall consider what the hon. Gentleman said. There is no doubt that Miss Nudel has been treated badly in her application to emigrate from the Soviet Union. Her application was originally refused on the ground that in her previous employment she had had access to classified information. As her previous job, before she was dismissed, was in an institute concerned with hygiene standards and food shops, it was a somewhat improbable explanation.

Mr. Lawrence: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that Ida Nudel was the winner of the all-party committee for the release of Soviet Jewry award some two years ago, as was Josef Begun last year, who has been sentenced to solitary confinement "for unsatisfactory behaviour", and whose case I hope my hon. Friend will raise at the same time as that of Miss Nudel?

Mr. Rifkind: The cases of Ida Nudel and Josef Begun were raised on several occasions by our representative at the conference in Madrid, and I pesonally raised the case of Miss Nudel when I saw Mr. Kornienko in Moscow earlier this year. We shall continue to look at other methods of pursuing the case, including that suggested by the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Woodall)

Mr. Anderson: Is the Minister aware of reports that Soviet officials are signing registered letter receipts on behalf of Jewish refusniks and thus preventing them receiving mail from abroad? Is he also aware that a number of Hebrew books have been banned in the Soviet Union, including "The Ugly Duckling" and "Sleeping Beauty"? Both actions appear to be in complete breach of the Helsinki undertakings. Will the Minister make representations on the matter?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the various ways in which the Soviet Union is failing to carry out its responsibilities under the Helsinki agreement. The example that he gave suggests that the Soviet Union's determination to prevent sensitive information from reaching its own citizens extends beyond the wildest realms of fantasy.

Uganda

Mr. Bell: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last discussed with the Uganda Government the question of compensation for expropriated property and assets of British citizens.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I discussed this question with the Prime Minister of Uganda this morning. I told him of the importance we attach to seeing significant progress made in settling these claims. Mr. Allimadi explained that work was already in hand and that he understood the importance of the matter.

Mr. Bell: Notwithstanding the discussions that took place this morning, is it the Government's intention, in the light of a recent High Court decision, to allow a test case


of a Ugandan on the question of compensation, to see whether Ugandan law is effective? Is it the Government's intention to put Ugandans settled here through the mincemeat of our legal machinery, or will they take into account the magnificent decision that was taken in the early '70s by the right hon. Member for what is now Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), when he was Prime Minister, to allow Ugandans to settle here? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that this is a valid criterion and pursue more positively with the Ugandan Government the question of the restitution of assets to Ugandans who have settled here which are validly and legally theirs?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman, in talking about putting those people through the legal machinery, may have misunderstood the position. An application for a judicial review will be heard by the High Court in this country next year. That is sub judice, and it would not be proper for me to say anything about it. The real remedy — I think that it is the one for which the hon. Gentleman is pressing—is effective implementation of the remedies that are available to the claimants under the law in Uganda. The important aspect, which I stressed to the Ugandan Prime Minister this morning, is the need to press ahead with the implementation of that law, to produce the remedies that the hon. Gentleman seeks. I received the assurance which I have reported to the House.

Mr. George Robertson: The House will welcome the vigour with which the Foreign Secretary is pursuing this matter, but the real issue is whether local legal remedies are available to Ugandan Asians in the courts of Uganda. As the initial decision by the court in this country was that there were no legal remedies, can the Foreign Secretary reiterate the assurance given by his predecessor, in his letter to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), that if no legal remedies are available in Uganda the British Government will accept responsibility for all the claims?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Plainly, if that turns out to be the position we shall have to reconsider the matter. What is important is whether there are Ugandan remedies and whether they are effective. Our representations have been directed towards that end. The law exists. There has been some delay in establishing the membership of the verification committee, but I have been assured that that will be put right and that steps are being taken to process these claims. We shall continue to maintain pressure to secure further progress in that direction, which I am sure is the right way in which to resolve the matter.

Angola

Mr. Proctor: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current state of relations with Angola.

Mr. Rifkind: We have friendly relations with Angola, though the problem of the British prisoners remains.

Mr. Proctor: When my hon. Friend visited Angola relatively recently, did he raise with the Angolan Government the case of my former constituent, now the constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess), Mr. Malcolm McIntyre, and other Britons? Did he gain any impression of the possibility of the early 

release of those imprisoned mercenaries? Did he form a view about the recent successes of UNITA being a problem in the release of those mercenaries?

Mr. Rifkind: When I was in Luanda recently I raised the problem of the British mercenaries with both the Angolan Foreign Minister and other Angolan Ministers whom I met. I reminded the Angolan Foreign Minister of his statement earlier this year that he hoped there would be an opportune moment for the release of the British mercenaries during 1983. The answer to the second part of my hon. Friend's question is that there is no doubt that the Angolan Government are concerned about the implications of the release of mercenaries for their country's internal problems. We hope that what was said by the Angolan Foreign Minister will be fully honoured before the end of this year.

Mr. Flannery: Is it not true that the South African illegal occupation of Namibia and its attacks on southern Angola, with the support of UNITA, exacerbate relations between almost any country and Angola, and that Angola, left to itself, would be far more humane, even to mercenaries, if the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Proctor) did something to attack South Africa for illegally occupying Namibia and for its attacks on Angola?

Mr. Rifkind: While we have made clear our disapproval of the South African occupation of part of Angola, the main problem facing the Angolan Government is the internal war between the Angolan Government and the UNITA movement. In our view, that problem should be resolved by the people of Angola themselves. We hope that there will be no foreign intervention from any source.

Mr. Wilkinson: When my hon. Friend was in Luanda, did he express to the Angolan authorities the view that the presence of Cuban troops in Angola was a negative factor in trying to achieve a peaceful solution of the Namibian independence problem?

Mr. Rifkind: On a number of occasions we have made it clear to the Angolan Government that if it became possible for the Cubans to leave Angola that would not only contribute to solving the problem of Namibian independence but would help to relieve the tension in South Africa as a whole.

Mr. John David Taylor: What efforts have the Government made to bring about the release of British missionaries from Northern Ireland who are at present imprisoned in Angola by UNITA?

Mr. Rifkind: I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about a number of missionaries, of whom I think two are of British origin. We are anxiously exploring ways, both direct with the Angolan Government and through the International Red Cross, to try to resolve the problem.

Mr. Anderson: On the question of linkage, why was the Government's position not made clear to Mr. Botha? He was reported last Friday, after his meeting with the Foreign Secretary, as saying that
while he now understood British motives, he was still confused about Britain's real position towards South Africa's demand
on linkage. Why was there this confusion? Was it because the Government were speaking with different voices to Mr. Botha and to the Commonwealth Heads of Government in Delhi?

Mr. Rifkind: I cannot comment on Mr. Botha's confusion, but the British Government have always made it clear that while we do not recognise any legal or legitimate connection between Cuban troops in Angola and the independence of Namibia, progress towards the departure of Cubans from Angola would improve the atmosphere in the region as a whole and make an important contribution towards resolving the Namibian problem.

Turkey

Ms. Clare Short: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what report he has received from the British consulate in Istanbul about the outcome of the trial of a member of the Turkish Peace Association.

Mr. Whitney: Her Majesty's consulate-general in Istanbul has reported that 23 of the defendants were found guilty of offences under the Turkish penal code. Eighteen received sentences of eight years' imprisonment and five sentences of five years' imprisonment. The remaining five defendants were released.

Ms. Short: Will the Government use their influence and close relationship with the Turkish regime to demand the release of these innocent people who have done no more than advocate disarmament and ask whether it is helpful to Turkey to be a member of NATO, especially as many of them are old, frail and sick? Will the Government cease to defend this brutal and repressive regime just because it is a member of NATO and cease to apply double standards in relation to Turkey?

Mr. Whitney: The hon. Lady will be aware that appeals have been lodged in these cases and, therefore, they are sub judice. The Government have consistently made clear to the Turkish authorities our concern, and that of the British people, about continuing allegations of violations of human rights. However, it is not normal practice for the Government formally to intervene with the Government of another country on behalf of that country's citizens.

Mr. Healey: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Gentleman suggested that because a legal case was being heard in another country no comment should be made upon it in this House. That is surely totally contrary to the practice of this House.

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that it would be sub judice for us.

Mr. Boyes: Will the Minister consider the possibility of taking economic and political sanctions against Turkey, particularly on military exports, until these prisoners have been released?

Mr. Whitney: Our views on violations of human rights in Turkey and elsewhere have been made clear, and we take what seems to be useful and effective action. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's proposition would be so effective.

Central America

Mr. Lofthouse: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will discuss with other European Community Governments the situation in Central America.

Mr. Whitney: We keep in close touch with our partners of the Ten, and discuss Central America whenever this is necessary.

Mr. Lofthouse: If the Foreign Secretary still has any influence at all with the United States, will he ensure that the conciliatory moves by the Government of Nicaragua receive a positive response?

Mr. Whitney: The United States Government have welcomed the moves by the Government of Nicaragua, and all of us who look for the establishment of peace, democratic institutions and democracy in that country hope that those measures will result in genuine progress in that direction.

Mr. Bottomley: Would it not have been easier to persuade the Americans and others with influence in El Salvador to have effective free elections had the Nicaraguans held elections after their revolution?

Mr. Whitney: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It is interesting to compare the promises that have now been announced by the Nicaraguan Government with the undertakings they gave in 1979.

Mr. Healey: As the hon. Gentleman is so concerned to protect the Prime Minister's interests in this matter, does he not recall that when the right hon. Lady last talked to her colleagues at the European summit in Stuttgart, she agreed with them that force has no role to play in seeking a solution to the problems of Central America? Will he therefore ensure that the British Government inform the American Government that they should now withdrew their troops from this alleged exercise in Honduras and accept the many steps that the Nicaraguan Government have taken towards trying to establish normal relations with the United States through peaceful negotiation?

Mr. Whitney: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Government's constant position is to seek peaceful progress in Central America, be it in Nicaragua or elsewhere. I very much hope that the Nicaraguan Government, who have the largest standing army in Central America and whose Cuban military presence is greater than any other foreign observer, will take note and subscribe to the Contadora initiative.

Middle East

Mr. Walters: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will report on progress towards a comprehensive peace settlement in the middle east.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The lack of progress towards a comprehensive settlement is deeply disappointing. We believe that President Reagan's proposals of September 1982 still offer a realistic basis for negotiation.
The parties directly concerned have the primary responsibility for reaching a settlement, but we shall continue to play an active role in urging them to settle their differences by negotiation. Real determination on the part of all those concerned to achieve that in the Lebanon would make an important contribution.

Mr. Walters: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that one of the most effective ways of defusing the present highly dangerous situation in the middle east would be for the European Community to sponsor a


conference at which all the relevant parties, including the United States and the Soviet Union, would participate? Will he do something to persuade our American friends that that is a reality?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I take note of my hon. Friend's suggestion, because it is important that every possible alternative should be carefully examined. However, I am not sure that his suggestion would be the easiest way of making progress.

Mr. Cartwright: Does the Secretary of State still believe that there can be no lasting peace in the middle east unless it is recognised that the Palestinians have the same right to a homeland as any other people on this earth? If that is still the Government's policy, what steps is he taking to try to secure self-determination for the Palestinians?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: We have always acknowledged that the Palestinian people must play a full part in negotiations on their future. We still believe that they should do so. It would be a serious mistake if they were to turn their backs on the possibility of a peaceful solution as a result of the recent upheavals. In addition, they should be prepared to accept the right of Israel to exist in peace and should renounce terrorism in unambiguous terms.

Mr. Temple-Morris: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that many of us in this House, and even those who number themselves as being among America's greatest friends and allies, have serious reservations about her policy and its application in the middle east? Does he think that that policy, and the actions that are furthering it, make it easier for Western-Arab allies in that difficult area?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I understand my hon. Friend's point and respect the moderation with which he made it. Clearly, it is important for the United States to understand the anxieties that were expressed in this House on Monday. Those have been drawn to their attention. Today I saw the President's special envoy in the middle east, Mr. Rumsfeld, and tonight and tomorrow in Brussels I should be meeting Secretary of State Shultz and the other Foreign Secretaries concerned in the multinational force and NATO.

Mr. Faulds: In view of its likely effects on the prospects for peace in the middle east and on long-term Western interests in the area, may I ask whether the Government were consulted before the conclusion of the Israeli-American strategic agreement?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The recent discussions between the Israeli Government and the United States concerned the bilateral relations between those two countries. There was no specific consultation with us about that.

Mr. Dorrell: While the House must be concerned with the safety of British military personnel in the Lebanon, and while there is plenty of room for doubt about the wisdom of deepening American involvement in the internal affairs of that country, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that by far the most important priority of this House is to defend the main British interests and the continuing strength of the Western Alliance, bedded on our alliance with the United States?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Even though there may be differences between members

of the Alliance, it is crucial that we do not forget the fundamental importance of the Alliance to the West and to this country. There are many matters on which we must hold discussions. We have done so and will continue.

Mr. Healey: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the United States Administration have a certain obligation to respect the importance of the unity of the Alliance in the decisions that they take on issues in other parts of the world? Does he agree also that President Reagan torpedoed his own proposals for a Palestinian settlement, which he made in September 1982, by making, the other day, with the Israeli Government what their Prime Minister described as a "military alliance", and by using military force against Syria in the Lebanon in pursuance of Presidential directive 111, which was signed on 29 October? Does he agree that the excuse that was given the other day by the Minister of State in the House that the Americans were acting in self-defence is blown out of the water by the many reports in the American press from officials in the American Administration that the military action was decided on long before the reconnaissance aircraft were fired on in the Bekaa valley?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: It is important for all partners to an alliance to recognise the importance of that alliance and to conduct themselves accordingly. It is important also for all the participants in the multinational force to play their part in that force in a fashion that is consistent with their original objectives. The explanation for the American action in the Lebanon is something for the Americans to give. My hon. Friend presented the House with the position as he understood it on Monday, and he did so correctly and accurately. It is important for all concerned to recognise that the objective of the multinational force's presence is to promote the process of reconciliation to secure better prospects for the sovereign independence of the Lebanon.

Mr. Healey: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman recognise that he was led up the garden path by the American Administration in respect of the Lebanon as he was led up it on Grenada? Unless he is prepared to stand up for British interests within the Alliance, the Alliance will founder.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The right hon. Gentleman scarcely ever misses an opportunity of doing what he can to attack the United States in respect of the Alliance.

Mr. Healey: What about answering the question?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I shall answer the question fairly. The right hon. Gentleman is too often tempted by the simple attraction of denouncing the United States. It is my role—it is one that I am happy to fulfil and one that I shall fulfil — to ensure that Britain's views on these matters are fully and accurately represented to our partners in the multinational force. I shall do just that.

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN COMMUNITY

Own Resources

Mr. Stuart Holland: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs under what circumstances Her Majesty's Government would now consider an increase in own resources of the European Community.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The conditions in which Her Majesty's Government would consider an increase in own resources are unchanged since my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister spelt them out at the European Council in Stuttgart in June. Before any increase can be considered there must be effective control of agricultural and other expenditure and an arrangement to ensure a fair sharing of the Community's financial burden. That was our position in Athens and it remains our position.

Mr. Holland: Will the Secretary of State say whether any of the Athens discussions considered the aid and development budget of the Community and the importance of safeguarding it against predations from the common agricultural policy? Did he take the opportunity provided by the summit to raise the interests of those Commonwealth countries excluded from the ACP and Lomé agreements, such as India, or when in Athens did he simply forget the priorities and agenda of the New Delhi summit?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: There was no specific discussion of the aid and development budget. One would not have expected that in the circumstances of the negotiations. I can assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that we were not unmindful of the relationships and obligations between Britain and other European countries and the Third world. One of the matters on which we were most insistent—I give this as an example — was our objection to the proposed tax on fats and oils. We argued that that would be harmful to the relationship between the Community and industrial countries, and certainly with Third world countries.

Mr. Marlow: In view of the problems at Athens yesterday, would it not be sensible to concentrate on one thing at a time and to delay further discussion of the entry of Spain and Portugal into the Community until we have sorted out the very real problems of the United Kingdom's budgetary contribution and the common agricultural policy? Would not this have the additional advantage that for the time being, if we are to sort out the common agricultural policy, we shall not need an increase in own resources?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The way in which these matters are discussed and the order in which they are discussed will be a matter for consideration in the light of the failure to reach agreement in Athens yesterday. Question No. 56 relates to the entry of Spain and Portugal.

Mr. Robin Cook: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman appreciate the rather surreal aspect to these exchanges in the wake of the failure at Athens, where the Government failed to get any of the conditions that they set out for an increase in own resources? Will he confirm that the proposed modulation of VAT that was discussed at Athens would not meet the British position on budgetary contributions as it would leave untouched customs levies and agricultural import levies, which are the real source of British disadvantage under the budget? Why does he not tell the House that in the present circumstances there is no prospect of Parliament being asked to increase the levies paid by the British people to finance expenditure on agriculture, which the Community has all too self-evidently no real intention of reforming?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The conclusions of the summit in the past two days are a disappointment to the Government

and they should be disappointing to us all. It is crucial for the Community to resolve the questions that are on the agenda. It is wrong of the hon. Gentleman to summarise the conclusions of the two days by saying that the Government failed to establish their position. Our position was crystal clear throughout the negotiations. We wanted the Community to resolve these matters and we believe that it is important that that should remain our position.
There are two different aspects to the modulation of value added tax. It is possible to design a method that will produce adequate relief for our budgetary contribution that operates solely by abatement of the contributions on the VAT side. It is possible to do that, and modulation of value added tax can take various forms in achieving that. It would be wrong for the House to conclude that it is necessary to prepare to accept, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, that there is no prospect of the resolution of these important questions. They must be resolved as soon as possible. It does not lie solely within the power of the Government to achieve the solutions to them.
It is high time that the hon. Gentleman recognised the importance of our making headway on these matters and recognised above all that her Majesty's Government's position is a clear determination to find answers to the problems. He should come to that recognition instead of sitting back and expressing some pleasure at the absence of progress.

Mr. Robin Cook: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. There are many more Questions on the Order Paper.

Foreign Policy

Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress towards a common European Community foreign policy.

Sir Anthony Meyer: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals he is putting to his European Community colleagues to strengthen political co-operation.

Mr. Rifkind: The Ten are in constant and close consultation on current international problems with a view to achieving common positions on them. Most recently, the Ten issued joint statements on the Lebanon in Athens on 9 November and on the purported declaration of independence by the Turkish community in northern Cyprus, in Athens on the 16 November.

Mr. Knox: Will my hon. Friend confirm that greater co-operation in foreign affairs remains a major objective of Government foreign policy despite the disappointing outcome of the Athens summit?

Mr. Rifkind: That is a highly desirable objective. Whenever the Community can speak with one voice on foreign policy issues there is a greater impact on the international community as a whole than if individual countries put forward their own specific positions.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Does my hon. Friend accept that despite the deplorable obstinacy of our Common Market partners in clinging to their national interests as firmly as we are clinging to ours, the fact remains that without some give and take on all sides co-operation will break down altogether at a time when it has never been more necessary?

Mr. Rifkind: I can understand my hon. Friend's point. There has been considerable success within the Community in achieving common positions on a number of important foreign policy considerations.

Dr. M. S. Miller: Will the hon. Gentleman comment on the undoubted fact that there are many British people who believe that the result of the Athens summit is a sellout once again to vested interests in countries whose interests are opposed to those of Britain?

Mr. Rifkind: The question is directed to Community foreign policy, which I do not think is relevant to the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question.

Mr. Stokes: Is my hon. Friend aware that I recently visited the Quai d'Orsay, in the anteroom of which was a large portrait of Cardinal Richelieu? As long as the Cardinal's policies continue, relations with France are bound to be difficult. Should we not be as nationalistic as they are?

Mr. Rifkind: I am unable to give an adequate reply to that question. I assure my hon. Friend that the United Kingdom does not cease to regard its national interests as being the prime concern when dealing matters affecting the European Community.

Mr. Foulkes: As the Athens summit did not discuss either Cyprus or the Lebanon, or reach any agreement on domestic Community policies, how on earth does the Minister expect the Ten to come to any rational agreement on the complex issues of foreign policy?

Mr. Rifkind: If the hon. Gentleman thinks about his question, he will realise that in recent weeks an opportunity has been available to the Community to achieve a common position on Cyprus and the Lebanon. It is not surprising, bearing in mind the circumstances of the Athens summit, that the time available should have been used to try to reach agreement on the internal Community problems.

Common Agricultural Policy

Mr. Maxton: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what mechanism is proposed by Her Majesty's Government to control the increase in expenditure on the common agriculture policy.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Our proposals for the control of agricultural spending were explained by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in the debate in the House on the common agricultural policy on 1 December. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be making a statement to the House later today on the outcome of the European Council in Athens at which this subject was discussed.

Mr. Maxton: Since France and other EC countries will not accept even the most minor changes to the common agricultural policy, how on earth does the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary expect them to accept the major changes which the Government and the House expect? If that is the position, will the Government create a major constitutional crisis in Europe, or will they, yet again, accept a humiliating climb-down?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The conclusions of yesterday's proceedings make it absolutely plain that there is no

question of the Government agreeing to a humiliating climb-down on this or any other issue. There was widespread recognition throughout the Athens negotiations of the need to ensure fundamental reforms of the CAP. We had before us a French document recognising the need for the control of Community expenditure. The topic was under discussion. Unfortunately, the will did not go far enough to secure sufficiently effective control. That is one of the reasons why we were not prepared to accept that conclusion.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Would not one of the best mechanisms to control the CAP be to stop paying farmers for growing food that we do not want at prices that we cannot afford?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: That is a shrewd and perceptive observation. Effective control on agricultural surpluses — directed, for example, to milk — was one of the matters on which we and several other states were prepared to agree, but on which agreement did not spread sufficiently far in Athens yesterday.

Mr. Ioan Evans: As the CAP has meant a scandalous destruction of fruit, vegetable and dairy mountains, when will the Government make a stand, not only on the issue of increasing own resources, but on stopping any resources entering the Common Market until this matter is sorted out?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman must appreciate that agricultural protection regimes in other countries, apart from those in the European Community, often have unintended effects of the type he described. That is one of the reasons why our stand is directed to securing effective control of the growth of agricultural expenditure and a proper regime within the Community to tackle precisely the problems that the hon. Gentleman has in mind.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Is the my right hon. and learned Friend aware that, while most hon. Members accept that the Government have performed a great service by stating they believe that CAP expenditure should be contained and controlled, many of us who listened to the 1 December debate and all the statements have not the slightest idea of precisely how the Government think that the capping, containing or restraining should be performed?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend should re-study the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in that debate. The essence of the approach is that there must be a proper limit on expenditure on the agricultural policy, accompanied by effective policies, which would include a strict price policy and changes in the other regimes to ensure that no methods remained open whereby surpluses continued to grow along the lines about which we have complained.

Mr. Robin Cook: If the Government are committed to obtaining effective control over agricultural expenditure, why is the Chancellor of the Exchequer budgeting for a 50 per cent. increase in expenditure on agricultural intervention?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: There is no sign of what the outturn of the negotiations will be. The House should be in no doubt after last week's debate that one of the conditions for a successful conclusion of the Stuttgart-Athens agenda is the achievement of effective control on the growth of agricultural spending.

Spain and Portugal

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the estimated net cost of the European Community budget of the proposed accession of Spain and Portugal.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: It is generally accepted that both Spain and Portugal will be net recipients from the Community budget. Their actual net receipts after accession will depend on the outcome both of the post-Stuttgart and the accession negotiations currently under way.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Bearing in mind that the movement towards the accession of Spain and Portugal is gaining momentum, can we be given accurate estimates of costs on which to base a decision of principle, as the events of the past few days show that budgetary arrangements, once settled, are difficult to alter? Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that there is a limit to the costs that the Government would be prepared to accept in admitting Spain and Portugal to the EC?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The costs of accession cannot yet be determined, as they depend on the nature and conclusion of the enlargement negotiations, and on the outturn of the negotiations that were broken off in Athens yesterday. Our contribution to those costs depends critically on our success in achieving a fair amendment of the budgetary arrangements in the Community which was one of the two key conditions emphasised by my right hon. Friend in Athens and Stuttgart.

Mr. Deakins: Are the estimates of the costs of accession likely to be based on present levels of agricultural production in Spain and Portugal, or are vast increases to be expected under any conceivable regime for those two countries?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The precise shape of agricultural output and size for those two countries depends on the conclusions arrived at for the CAP regime as a whole.

Foreign Ministers

Mr. Skinner: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he most recently met other European Community Foreign Ministers; and what subjects were discussed.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I met my Community colleagues on 4–6 December at the European Council, to which I accompanied my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. The subjects discussed will be covered by my right hon. Friend in the statement she will be making immediately after Question Time today.

Mr. Skinner: Is it not time that even this thick-skinned Government understood that the Common Market summit — like many others—was a complete waste of time? Does not that fact vindicate those of us who, on 28 October 1971, refused to be carried away by the propaganda to vote for the Common Market, as were the Social Democrats and the rest? Does it not say much about the Common Market that it cannot settle matters discussed for 48 hours, but can manage to produce regulations to cover the length,

weight and size of gherkins? What a carry on. Why does not the Foreign Secretary stand at the Dispatch Box and say that we will not send any contribution? That is the way to operate.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am prepared to leave the hon. Gentleman in the increasingly eccentric isolation that his views represent. He would do well to consider the length of time, which has to be measured in years and not days, that the Labour party has taken in failing to solve its problems.

Mr. Budgen: Will my right hon. and learned Friend tell the House what percentage reduction in price for cereals and milk was proposed at Athens by the British Government?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Our main proposal for milk was concentrated on reducing substantially the total volume of milk covered by Community arrangements and on proposing a price freeze for a significant period. We proposed that cereal prices should be lowered progressively, to get closer to world prices.

Mr. Ernie Ross: Point 2 of the Venice declaration referred to the traditional ties and common interests that link Europe to the middle east. Why was time not found to discuss a joint common initiative to help resolve the problems of the middle east?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Some discussions on that subject took place between those who attended the Athens meeting, but no time remained for formal conclusions on such mattters. It would have been inappropriate to try to reach rushed conclusions, as most time had to be devoted to discussions on the main Community agenda.

Mr. John David Taylor: If there is still no reform of the CAP by March, will the Government be prepared to agree a new farm price review?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The longer the time that elapses before these crucial questions are agreed, the greater will become the constraints on the institutions of the Community, including the constraints within which Agriculture Ministers have to consider farm prices.

Council of Ministers

Mr. Fallon: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to attend the Council of Ministers of the European Communities.

Mr. Rifkind: My right hon. and learned Friend expects to attend the next Foreign Affairs Council in Brussels on the 19 and 20 of December.

Mr. Fallon: In the light of recent events, will my hon. Friend consider the suggestion that primary responsibility for next year's farm prices should be transferred from the Agriculture Council to the Finance Council or the General Council?

Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend knows that our prime objectives include ensuring that there is a strict financial guideline in agriculture and that financial considerations should play a most important part in determining the totality of agriculture expenditure.

Athens Summit

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement on the European Council in Athens on 4 to 6 December at which my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary and I represented the United Kingdom.
At its previous meeting in Stuttgart, the European Council had agreed that it was essential at this stage to consider the long-term future of the European Community and to tackle certain fundamental problems — in particular, agricultural surpluses, effective control of Community spending and a fairer distribution of the burden of financing the Community. We were all agreed that the Stuttgart package had to be taken as a whole and that decisions on each item depended on agreement on the rest. Unfortunately, the Community was not ready at Athens to take the necessary decisions. A number of member states wished to follow past practices and adopt a number of unsatisfactory compromises.
On agriculture, the main issues discussed at Athens were price policy and the limitation of open-ended guarantees, action to curb the milk surplus, import and export policy, the proposed oils and fats tax and monetary compensatory amounts.
There was a considerable difference of view on price policy, on the volume of milk that might be subject to quota and super-levy and on various requests and proposals from some countries for exemptions. The United Kingdom is among those member states that consider that a rigorous price policy is essential, that any other arrangements for milk such as a super-levy should be nondiscriminatory and that the surpluses of many other Community products need to be dealt with as well. Four member states, including the United Kingdom, made it clear that the proposal for an oils and fats tax was unacceptable. On monetary compensatory amounts, the differences between France and Germany were not resolved.
With regard to the unfair budgetary burden, there was some recognition that a lasting solution must be found that would put limits on the net contributions of member states—limits that are related to ability to pay. That would be implemented by correcting the VAT contribution of the member state concerned in the following year. The majority of countries wished to establish a lasting system on those lines, which would be part and parcel of any decision on new resources. Unfortunately, although preparatory negotiations on the matter had made considerable progress, not all member states agreed to this approach, and, accordingly, no decisions could be taken. Similarly, with the problem of Community expenditure, the will to control it effectively was just not present at the Athens meeting.
Even the ideas recently advanced by the French Government were not accepted by all countries as a basis for discussion. I made it clear that there must be strict guidelines for agricultural spending, which must be embodied in the budgetary procedures of the Community. Unless the agricultural and financial issues can be resolved, the resources for new policies such as cooperation in research and development are very limited

indeed, although many of us recognise that in the long run they are very important and that room should be made for them.
International questions such as Cyprus and the Lebanon were not discussed in plenary session, but were, of course, much discussed outside it. No official statements were issued on these or any other matters.
It is regrettable that the European Council was not able on this occasion to make the necessary progress for the next stage of the Community's development. I had made it clear that I would not consider an increase in own resources unless there was agreement on a fair sharing of the budgetary burden and an effective control of agricultural and other expenditure. There was no such agreement and, therefore, for the United Kingdom, the question of an increase of the Community's resources did not arise.

Mr. Neil Kinnock: May I first ask the Prime Minister about the things that are almost absent from her statement and, apparently, were almost absent from the discussions in Athens? I understand that her wish was to prevent Heads of State from discussing anything until they had resolved the internal issues of the Community. Is that why no significant attention was given to subjects such as Cyprus, the world recession and, particularly, the Lebanon?
Is the Prime Minister aware that yesterday we were given what we interpreted as an undertaking—I think a genuine undertaking—that as part of the review that the Government are undertaking of the British presence in Beirut, we could look forward to a statement on the Prime Minister's return? No such statement has been forthcoming. Therefore, will the Prime Minister give some time to that matter in her reply to me or to other hon. Members, because there is great concern at the moment, especially in the light of reports that a British Land-Rover has been knocked out and that British positions have been under fire?
I have some questions about specific issues discussed in Athens. It appears from press reports that the Prime Minister has tried to lay the blame for the unmitigated failure of the Athens summit on everyone but herself. Of course, we are used to that from the banana skin Prime Minister. Will she tell us whether she remembers that, on her return from the Stuttgart summit in late June, she said that she expected great success in Athens on budgetary discipline, equitable sharing of burdens and control of expenditure? She is quoted in today's newspapers as saying that the deepening crisis will sharpen our partners' minds and her quoted statements strongly imply that our partners will be brought to order by the time of the Brussels meeting in March. What does the right hon. Lady think will change between Athens in December and Brussels in March?

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The weather.

Mr. Kinnock: Why does the Prime Minister believe that the French will change their position during those months? Does she really think that fundametal reforms are more likely under a French Presidency of the Council than they have been under the six months of the Greek Presidency?
Thanks to the failure in Athens, we have no agreement on the 1984 rebate, and the European Parliament could decide not to release the rebate for 1983, which was agreed


at Stuttgart. Consequently, who will suffer the most pressure in the build-up to Brussels — ourselves or countries whose Governments oppose significant reforms in the system of financing?
Will the Prime Minister tell the House what response she made in Athens to the positive proposals put to her for joint action by member Governments to raise falling investment and to reduce unemployment across the whole continent of Europe? Will she accept that, especially in the light of our own prolonged slump under her Government —[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Kinnock: Certain hon. Members could not give any demonstrations of democracy to our partners in Europe.
In the light of the perpetuated slump in this country under her Government, does the Prime Minister not recognise that the continent must invest, trade and produce its way out of depression and thus avoid the waste and horror of 20 million unemployed in Europe by the 1990s? What constructive response has the Prime Minister given to those proposals? Few authorities in this country or among our partners could have thought that she was serious about advancing British interests in Athens, when, in his autumn statement, her own Chancellor budgeted for an increase of £420 million, or 50 per cent., in United Kingdom spending on agricultural intervention next year? Was not that a clear signal to everyone, including those with whom the right hon. Lady was negotiating, that the Government either had no clear intention of securing reform or had given up on it altogether? Was the Chancellor giving a signal? [Interruption.] Apparently the right hon. Gentleman does not understand what I mean. Was it deliberate, or was it just stupid? In either case, does the Prime Minister recognise that the publication of those figures undermined her negotiating posture at the summit? Do not all those considerations—[HON. MEMBERS: "Get on with it."] Hon. Members are going to get it. Our country has been let down again, and they are going to get more of it.
The fact that the right hon. Lady has fallen into the period of the French presidency, the failure of Athens itself, the rebate problem and the incompetence of her negotiating stature leave us even worse off now than when she went to Athens.
In a spirit of helpfulness and without resorting to any short-term expedients—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. A certain latitude is always allowed to the Leader of the Opposition, but I hope that he will come to his conclusion soon.

Mr. Kinnock: I shall seek earnestly to respond to your request, Mr. Speaker, but we have just heard one of the most superficial and inadequate statements — [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes—yours!"] If the right hon. Lady will not volunteer any matters of substance, we will get the answers out of her, even if it takes longer, by asking questions.
In a spirit of helpfulness and without resorting to any short-term expedients—which I abominate as much as the right hon. Lady does — I suggest that the Prime Minister could gain much greater progress by the time of Brussels, first, by assuring the House that there is no question now of asking us for any increase in our own

resources VAT contributions to the EC. [HON. MEMBERS: "She said that."] Hon. Gentlemen were not listening. The choice of words in the Prime Minister's statement was a great deal more delicate than it had to be.
Secondly, will the Prime Minister insist at the farm price review next year, if no progress has been made. that there will be a reduction in British farm prices in order to reduce the cost to the common agricultural policy?
Finally, will the right hon. Lady now declare her determination to withhold all or part of our contributions until agreement is reached upon fundamental changes in the Common Market which remove the persistent disadvantages of British membership? Will she accept that, unless she is prepared to take such action, none of her tantrums or posturing will impress the British people in the slightest?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman's first point was about Cyprus. I had discussions in the margins with the Greek Prime Minister. There is of course nothing new to report on Cyprus. We fully support the activities of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who is using his good offices to try to bring the two communities together in a unitary Cyprus. We drafted the United Nations Security Council resolution and worked very hard to get it a very good vote. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware of its wording. The matter is in the hands of the Secretary-General and we support his activities.
As a guarantor power, we have twice contacted the other two guarantor powers in an attempt to set up talks. So far we have not succeeded, because the conditions set by the two parties for sitting down together are at present inconsistent. We shall persist in our efforts.
There were talks between the countries represented in the multinational force in the Lebanon. We are in the multinational force together and we believe that we must continue to consult each other and to make decisions together. [Interruption.] There is to be a meeting tomorrow of the Foreign Ministers of the four countries in the multinational force. It is clear that the services of the British contingent are much valued locally by, I believe, all parts of the Lebanon community——

Mr. Andrew Faulds: The Dnuze and the Moslems?

The Prime Minister: —and I believe that they would be upset or even dismayed if our small but valuable force pulled out. It is a force of total integrity, in which we can take pride. It has two jobs: guarding the building where the security and truce talks are taking place, and engaging in reconnaissance in Beirut. I believe that there would be considerable repercussions not only among the communities in the Lebanon and the Arab and Jewish communities beyond it, but also within the Alliance, if there were any suggestion that we intended unilaterally to pull out or to lead a retreat. We do not. We are trying to carry out our duties well in the Lebanon.
The particular matter under consideration was the whole Stuttgart agenda. The right hon. Gentleman has no idea how difficult it is to reach agreement among 10 countries when what is under discussion is the whole matter under the purview of the European Community.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: You said you could.

The Prime Minister: Yes, of course, we always try, and many countries agreed. However, when fundamental


changes are to be made, there has to be complete unanimity among all the partners. Their interests are very different. Some of the great beneficiaries of the Community wish to carry on as they are. The reason why they will not be able to do so indefinitely, and why things will change progressively during the year, is that the Common Market is gradually running out of money with which to carry out existing policies and, at the rate at which they are being produced, the agricultural surpluses will soon run up against a ceiling and the heads of Government will have to turn their minds to different matters.
Change will therefore be nearer by March. As I explained at a press conference after the summit, I doubt whether the Common Market will be in real financial difficulty until the autumn, but the present policies cannot be carried on indefinitely because there will be no money to finance them. That will be the point at which we are most likely to get reform. A number of us had hoped to bring about a change before that, but we were not successful in getting the agreement of 10 countries. If I had accepted some of the compromises that were suggested, the right hon. Gentleman would really have been able to criticise. They would have sold our farmers down the river and given us a substantial increase in contributions without any lasting solution on effective control of the budget or fairer sharing of the financial burden.
I turn to the 1983 rebate. The sum of 750 million ECUs agreed at Stuttgart is not yet in default [HON. MEMBERS: "Yet."] The right hon. Gentleman spoke as though the Common Market were in default with Britain. It is not. That contribution of 750 million ECUs is due by the last day in March and there is no default unless it is not paid by that time.
With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's next point — [Interruption.] — shall we assume, the Common Market not having been in default? If it does default, we shall have to consider matters then. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman would like it to default just to be able to make an issue of it. I believe that it would be far better if the right hon. Gentleman were able to agree. I believe that this country gets a great many jobs bacause we are members of the Community. If we were to follow the right hon. Gentleman's policy of pulling out of the Common Market, a great deal of investment and a great many jobs would be lost—not least in Wales. If that is what he wants, let him say so.

Mr. Kinnock: indicated dissent.

The Prime Minister: If we were not members of the Common Market and were to return to the trading conditions that prevailed in the 1930s, with trade barriers going up, there would be absolute chaos, and unless we were participants in the common agricultural policy, farming and the food industry in this country would not be anything like as healthy as they are, and we should not be as self-sufficient as we are. All those matters are great plus points, which would be lost under the right hon. Gentleman's policies.
With regard to raising investment, as I pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman, there is a great deal of investment in this country because we are members of the Common Market. We shall not be able to raise the investment due under the economic and social policies

unless we can constrain agricultural surpluses more effectively. A number of us are willing to go down that path. We have not yet achieved the full agreement of all the members. A number of us wanted to cut next year's milk production to 97·2 million tonnes, which would have been 1983 minus 6 per cent. Although most of us were prepared to go along with that, a number of countries wanted to opt out and be allowed to produce the amount that they are producing this year. If there are to be changes to reduce the surpluses, and if we are to have a super-levy, they must apply to everyone without discrimination. We were not able to achieve that.
With regard to the suggestion that we withhold our contributions, I have told the right hon. Gentleman that the Common Market is not in default with Britain yet and we are not in default with it. Let us try to keep matters on a legal and honourable basis and hope that that 750 million ECUs will be forthcoming by the end of March.

Mr. Geoffrey Rippon: Does the Prime Minister accept that it is those who most desire the success of the European Community who most welcome her firm stand and her insistence that we cannot, although some of us would wish to do so, increase the Community's resources until there is agreement not just on the size, but on the shape of the budget? While agreeing that it is probably better to have an open failure at Athens than a pretended success, does she agree that it might be better not to have another meeting of Heads of State or Heads of Government until a firmer basis for agreement is achieved at a lower level?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend. I took the view that a patched-up compromise, which would have been unsatisfactory in every direction and would have involved having returns of our contributions for three or four years, in return for a permanent increase in own resources, should be completely rejected. We should still persist with trying to achieve the necessary fundamental changes in the European Community's policies.
The next regular scheduled meeting is in March. I agree that there is no point in accelerating a meeting until we are much further forward and much more preparatory work has been done on the details.
As my right hon. and learned Friend will know, some of the details that we were discussing are not suitable for discussion by Heads of State and should be agreed at the meeting of Ministers.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: The right hon. Lady is not a Head of State.

The Prime Minister: I am sorry, Head of Government. There were of course Heads of State—[HON. MEMBERS: "Queen Maggie."] — and as hon. Members know —[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister must be allowed to finish.

The Prime Minister: Heads of State and Heads of Government were represented. The President of France is, of course, a Head of State. Some of the subjects were not suitable for detailed discussions by Heads of State or Government and should be completed by the other preparatory committees.
I believe that we shall meet in March. Whether we shall concentrate on this or on the normal subjects that we discuss has yet to be seen.

Dr. David Owen: The stand adopted at Athens by Her Majesty's principal Minister has, I believe, the support of the vast majority of the British people, and, what is more, is in the interests of the European Community. It deserves and will therefore receive our support.
On the Lebanon, the right hon. Lady has rightly rejected the unilateral cutting and running of the peacekeeping force as suggested in the House on Monday. I believe that she is right to do so. Will she assure the House that we shall take a diplomatic initiative with our two European partners to establish the independence of the peacekeeping force in the restoration of peace in the Lebanon, and specifically urge on our United States allies the need to study the Lebanese-Israeli agreement again, and to take account of the feelings of the Moslem population in Lebanon and the Syrian Government's position?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his support on European Community matters. As I said, the four Foreign Secretaries will be meeting on Thursday when there is a NATO meeting. They will also be having separate meetings. I am sure that the points made by the right hon. Gentleman will be pursued vigorously at that meeting. We are very much aware of them.

Sir Peter Blaker: With regard to the Lebanon, is not closer consultation between the Governments who contribute to the multinational force the one objective that we should seek to achieve? If we were to withdraw our contribution to that force unilaterally, would it not defeat that objective?

The Prime Minister: Yes. We have no intention of withdrawing unilaterally, for the reasons that I have given. Our force is valued. If we want to exert maximum influence on Lebanese affairs, we must continue to be part of that multinational force. I agree with my right hon. Friend, that we need closer consultations with the United States. We meet frequently with our European partners, but not so frequently with the United States. That will be one of the valuable assets of the NATO meeting and the meeting of Foreign Secretaries, including Mr. Shultz, to which it will give rise.

Mr. Jack Ashley: Is the Prime Minister aware that she deserves the support of both sides of the House for the efforts that she has made to defend British interests in the EC? Our support should be expressed clearly and unambiguously. Having said that, will the Prime Minister consider two matters—first, the withdrawal of British payments to the EC and, secondly, making contingency arrangements for its break-up? That will show that she means business when she fights for British interests in Europe.

The Prime Minister: With regard to the part of the right hon. Gentleman's question about contingency arrangements, it would not be right to prepare for an event that I believe will not occur.
We are at present negotiating for enlargement of the EC to include Spain and Portugal, and those negotiations must

continue. It is in the interests of Europe, and of democracy everywhere, that they succeed and we have an enlarged European Community.
With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's question about withholding, the European Community is not in default with us on its obligations. Were it to default on its obligations, then we would have to take steps to safeguard our position.

Mr. Robert Jackson: Since the Community's failure at Athens is clearly not the fault of the British Government, would my right hon. Friend make it clear that when the European Parliament votes on the budget next week it would be wrong and mistaken for it to take any action that would discriminate against Britain?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I wholly agree with my hon. Friend. It would be wrong for the European Parliament to discriminate against Britain. It would not be helpful. We are as usual taking a very positive position on the Community and a very positive position on solving our problems, but we do insist on solving the long-tern problems. Judging by the position so far taken up by the Parliament, it also desires the solution of that problem on a long-term basis.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: Will the Prime Minister accept that, while I thought she threw away a good solution three years ago in Brussels, there was nothing on which she should have settled at Athens? There was no serious resolve to get hold of agricultural expenditure and she was right in the circumstances to play for time. Will she accept that the stakes are very high for March or June 1984, particularly at a time when there is increasing distrust across the Atlantic? If the Community were to begin to disintegrate, the dangers in terms of money and security in Europe would far exceed even the issues that she was discussing at Athens.

The Prime Minister: I noted the right hon. Gentleman's preliminary statement. He will remember that, when he thought I threw away the chance of a good solution, I actually went on a got a better one. I remember the occasion very well.
With regard to what he said about the stakes being high in March of June, yes, they are high, but that is an extra reason why the Community should be prepared to have strict financial guidelines, to have a fair sharing of the burden and to key that new system into a possible agreement to extend own resources. We cannot have an agreement to increase own resources unless we simultaneously get an agreement on a fairer sharing of the burden. Then we shall get a lasting solution and not otherwise.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: As the common agricultural policy has been a constant source of conflict between the nations of Europe and will continue to be so even if the proposed modifications succeed, would it not be wiser for the Government to try to discuss informally with the other leaders of Europe the possibility of a looser association that would ensure the continuance of the Common Market and of unity without having a policy that surely is contrary to all the excellent economic policies pursued by Her Majesty's Government?

The Prime Minister: Obviously there are some conflicts among the 10 members, and many of them were discussed during the past two or three days. I think there


would be infinitely more conflicts if we were not members of the European Community, and I think it would be a mistake to assume that there would then be a common market, including Britain, if we came out of the Community as such. We should then face extensive problems and we should lose a great deal of investment, jobs and future prospects if there were to be any question of Britain coming out of the Community. However, I believe we settled that question once and for all at the last election.

Mr. Ron Leighton: Does the Prime Minister recall the Government publishing 18 months ago an excellent pamphlet entitled "The Budget problem" the last sentence of which says:
A lasting solution to the budget Problem must be found. This is the task for the autumn of 1982."?
As 1982 and 1983 have gone by, will she cut the cackle and take some action to carry out the resolution of the House that British contributions should not exceed our receipts? Will she do that by withholding the contributions that do exceed our receipts?

The Prime Minister: No, Mr. Speaker. I will uphold, or try at all times to uphold, the agreements that successive Prime Ministers have honourably reached with the European Community. At the moment we are trying to change those agreements because we think that in some aspects they ceased to be operating fairly. If one wants to get a better agreement one does not just go about breaching an old one.

Mr. Dave Nellist: Tell that to Eddie Shah.

The Prime Minister: If we break our own agreement within the Common Market, how can we ever expect the Common Market to honour an agreement with us? We are trying to change the budget system on to a lasting system on a totally different basis from that which has ever been held before. The advantage we have now that we did not have three years, two years or one year ago, or certainly the advantage we will have some time within the next one to two years, is that the 1 per cent. VAT ceiling will probably be reached during the coming year and therefore we are much more likely to get a change than we have been in the past.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: Does the Prime Minister agree that there is no possible solution to this dilemma by seeking to develop a Community on the looser lines of a trading partnership between the nations and that it is the nature of the Community that is essential to its political and security aspects? Since this may take some time despite her efforts, can she give an indication that those areas of co-operation, notably industry and especially the aircraft industry and high technology, will not be adversely affected by the negotiations as they proceed, no matter how rancorous they may get?

The Prime Minister: I think that when we go to an even larger Community of 12 some relationships are bound to be slightly looser because it is not possible to agree everything when their are disparate views among 12 different people. On the latter part of the question, I share my right hon. Friend's views on the necessity to have more co-operation on high technoloy. I think it is one of those aspects where Europe has lost out to the Japanese and to

the United States, although we are a larger market and every bit as healthy a market as the United States and much larger than Japan. I would like there to be some room made in the agricultural budget in order to get more industrial co-operation like Esprit and, of course, outside the Community we have matters to consider that we are now considering such as the airbus. We shall not have aircraft and high technology industries in Europe unless we are prepared to have much more co-operation than we have at present.

Mr. John Morris: Since British agriculture is far from reaching self-sufficiency, were not the negotiations in Athens an attempt to mitigate a European scandal and an obscenity? In the course of any discussions, it would be British agriculture that would be sacrificed and any hope of expansion would be lost. Will the Prime Minister therefore answer a simple question? Given her concern for jobs uttered earlier, how many jobs would be lost in British agriculture and why should our milk producers be punished in this way?

The Prime Minister: British agriculture has done well during the time that we have belonged to the European Community. British agriculture, the right hon. and learned Gentleman remembers, was always subsidised. I do not know of any industrial country in the world that has not had to make special provision for its agriculture if it wishes to have a healthy agriculture.

Mr. Jack Straw: Healthy?

The Prime Minister: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman who insists on interrupting from a sedentary position would wish it to go back to the condition it was in in the 1930s, when the policy was cheap food at the price of the British agricultural community.
The milk surplus is, of course, only one of the surpluses; milk is 25 per cent. in surplus in Europe. We are very nearly self-sufficient in the United Kingdom, but not quite. However, we are part of the common agricultural policy and we are trying to reduce the surpluses, though not by discriminating between one country to another.
Unfortunately, some countries included in the proposal asked to be made exceptions. Ireland wished not only not to reduce her output but actually to increase it, and Italy wanted to be an exception to the proposal that each of us would have to reduce the amount produced at present. It was not possible to go forward on that basis, because, instead of really tackling the surpluses, what was happening at Athens was that some countries wanted to raise extra taxes by increased co-responsibility levy and by an oils and fats tax to finance increased surpluses. It could have been a compromise but one that we totally and utterly rejected as going wholly in the wrong direction and abdicating from the Stuttgart decision.

Sir Anthony Meyer: My right hon. Friend has universal support for her rigid defence of British interests. So also do the leaders of the other member countries, many of whom are in a weaker political position than she is. Is she content at this time of exceptional peril merely to allow time to operate on them to bring them round to our point of view in view of the need for the European Community to exercise a united moderating influence on the United States?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those remarks. Undoubtedly, some of the decisions that each of us were required to take at Athens would be very difficult politically. We shall not get a change in the practice of the Community in regard to surpluses—not only milk surpluses but, for example, olive oil and wine, and there are great intervention funds for rice and tobacco —without there being considerable difficulty in taking some of the decisions that we must take. Therefore, each country was bound to have to take some penalties and get some gains from the many decisions that we had to take. How far we shall get them in the next six months I do not know—the European elections come up in June—but I believe that it is to our advantage to go ahead and make difficult decisions. I have always taken the view that we must not run away from long-term decisions. However, that view is not at present universally shared. The coalition Governments are often those in most difficulty. It says a lot when one has a good majority from a good two-party system.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: With the European elections coming in June, there may be pressure to delay an agreement. Is the right hon. Lady aware that many commentators fear that a financial crisis could come considerably earlier than the autumn? Will she give an assurance that the Government will bring forward contingency arrangements to ensure that those who are dependent for their cash flow on European funds will have their needs met and that there will not be a loss of confidence in the intervening period?

The Prime Minister: Some Heads of Government and some Heads of State may take the view that it would be more difficult, with the European elections coming up, to take the necessary steps required to carry out the Stuttgart decision. That may be right, in which case it would be delayed even longer.
As for a financial crisis, that will depend, of course, on the amount produced and on world prices. We could come into crisis earlier or later, and if we have any real difficulties on the budget, that would be the strongest factor that one could adduce to get agreement on reducing surplus production.

Mr. Richard Body: Is there any hope that my right hon. Friend will come just a little closer to the view that has been expressed on these Benches that there will continue to be friction and discord in the Common Market so long as it remains a customs union instead of a free trade area and so long as it insists on being a supranational authority instead of a partnership of nation states, as some on these Benches wish it to be?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that we could change from the kind of Community that we are now to the kind of Community that my hon. Friend wishes to see. I am the first to admit that there are considerable arguments, conflicts and discords, as there are bound to be in a relationship of that kind. I do not believe that those would be reduced if we went to the other kind of community, and our influence throughout the world would be substantially reduced were we not a full partner in the Community.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: If, as in her answer to the Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister attaches so much importance to consultation with the

United States, why does she think that Washington treated us so cavalierly over the Lebanon air strike? Could it possibly have been tit for tat for her disgraceful attitude towards Washington in not consulting them on sending the battle fleet or sinking the Belgrano?

The Prime Minister: The United States did not treat us in a cavalier fashion over the air strike. Decisions on self-defence must be taken on the spot, and co-operation between the commanders of the multinational force on the spot is excellent.

Mr. David Crouch: I greatly valued my right hon. Friend's statement this afternoon about maintaining the British presence, our forces, in Lebanon at this critical time. It was not only a careful and considered statement by her but a courageous one, because uppermost in our minds must be the safety of those men in that dangerous situation. May I suggest that so long as their role as an interposition force — a peace-keeping role — is not changed, they should remain? When anarchy and lawlessness break out on the streets, that is not the time to remove the police force.

The Prime Minister: I thank my hon. Friend for those remarks. We are, of course, daily concerned with the safety of our forces. That is why some weeks ago we sent a force of Buccaneers to Cyprus—to be there should we need them—and a few days ago HMS Fearless arrived to help should her services be needed; and sometimes the forces can spend some time on Fearless. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for taking the view that he expressed. It is a genuine peacekeeping role. It is highly valued and believe that if the multinational force were to come out now, the consequences would be severe indeed. So far it has not proved possible to get a United Nations truce supervisory force to take its place. That in theory is technically possible and there is nothing to stop it, except that so far the Soviet Union has not given its agreement.

Mr. Peter Hardy: As apparently it takes nearly 400 people on the Conservative Benches to effect the ruin of this country, is the right hon. Lady satisfied that less than one quarter of that number of young soldiers can be left in an exposed position to carry out a task which, I think, she described as "extremely valuable"?
As the right hon. Lady mentioned the European elections, is she prepared now wholeheartedly to endorse those Conservative Members of the European Assembly who have not only voted against the national interest in regard to the budgetary contributions but also appear to believe overwhelmingly in the principle of unlimited food surplus?

The Prime Minister: I do not accept the strictures of the hon. Gentleman on our membership of the European Assembly. It is working both for British interests and for the interests of the European Community as a whole.
Frequently, I am afraid, we put our soldiers in an exposed position, nowhere more so than in Northern Ireland, where—whether in the Lebanon or in Northern Ireland—they also carry out their role extremely well. I have given my views on the force in Lebanon; it is doing an excellent job and will continue to do so unless all four members of the multinational force come to some different arrangement, and there is no sign of that yet.

Mr. Peter Temple-Morris: While accepting utterly what my right hon. Friend said about the


British peacekeeping force in the Lebanon, may I ask whether she appreciates that there are people both inside and outside the House who have increasing and reluctant reservations about the drift of United States policy in the middle east and who fear that, if that drift is allowed to continue unchecked, that fact alone could represent the greatest danger in the future—however much we may dislike that fact — to the British peacekeeping force? Will my right hon. Friend therefore confirm that she is in constant contact with Washington over these important matters?

The Prime Minister: We share my hon. Friend's concern at any increase in violence, first because of the violence itself, which is horrific, and secondly because it is not conducive to the reconciliation talks that the President of Lebanon must soon continue again in Geneva. Thus, I understand my hon. Friend's concern. We should also understand that if, by any terrible mishap, we had lost a large number of soldiers in the Lebanon in the same way as the United States has, we should rightly think that our first duty was reconnaissance——

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: When were we told about that?

The Prime Minister: —we should rightly tell the Syrians that we would be undertaking reconnaissance and we would expect our planes not to be shot at; but if they were, we might also rightly think to take certain action in self-defence. I am sure that my hon. Friend, while I understand his concern, would not want us ever to consider even pulling out unilaterally or leading a retreat from the Lebanon.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a very important matter. Therefore, I propose to allow questions to run until half past four, which will mean that the House will have spent about an hour on this important statement.

Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: Given the threat to British forces in the Lebanon, does the Prime Minister not accept that she has a clear responsibility either to reinforce that garrison or, preferably, to withdraw it?

The Prime Minister: I do not think there is anything I can usefully add to what I have already said. We have a small force there. When we were originally asked to join the force I said that we could put in only a very small force because we are stretched militarily around the world. That small force is valuable.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: How can it protect itself?

The Prime Minister: If it needed to have more for its own protection, that would be made available. If one turns around the argument and says that they ought not be there—as I gather the hon. Gentleman thinks—then it would be unwise to put more there. I am not sure which case he is arguing.

Mr. Timothy Yeo: Bearing in mind that it was the Labour Government who conducted a so-called renegotiation of the terms of British membership of the Common Market, may I ask if my right hon. Friend agrees that it is shameful for the Opposition now to be glorying in the difficulties with which the EC is faced and,

indeed, ludicrous for them to direct criticism at those member states which are trying to resolve the difficulties? By doing those two things, are they not making even harder, the urgent task which we face in the first half of next year?

The Prime Minister: Yes. I think that even the Labour party would not seek to come out of the Common Market.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: The Prime Minister has mentioned the European Community running out of money in certain areas. While it is probably true that the funding of the EC is sufficient to last until August, does she not accept that there will be a considerable temptation for the Community to dip into the regional and social funds to fund the deficit in agriculture and other areas? Would she agree with us—would she agree with me—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"]—would she agree with us—[HON. MEMBERS: "Which?"]— that the maintenance of the integrity of those two funds and their enlargement are in large measure essential for the future development of the Community? Will she give an undertaking that she will resist any attempts by the Community to dip into those two funds to fund profligacy in agriculture and other areas?

The Prime Minister: Community funds will have to act in accordance with the rules, but they will be in difficulty if the surpluses go on increasing. While we have tried to get limitations on those surpluses we have not so far been successful. As the hon. Gentleman knows, it takes time to achieve that. A lot depends on prices policy, too, during the next review. It will be difficult. I hope that the two funds will be kept separate.
I would not necessarily agree with the hon. Gentleman that we must have an enlargement of the funds at any price. I firmly set my face against enlargement except at a price. That price is strict guidelines on financial control, which are embodied in the budgetary procedure. It is no good having political guidelines. They must be in the budgetary procedure so that they are observed. Also, we are not prepared to pay more unless there is a fairer sharing of the burden. It seems intolerable for other countries to say to the two main contributors, Germany and ourselves, "We have not got enough. We know you are the main contributors. Now you have to pay some more." I am saying that, if there is to be more, there must be a fairer sharing and it must be based on ability to pay, n net contributions.

Mr. Dennis Walters: Did my right hon. Friend have an opportunity to discuss with her colleagues the recent accord between the United States and Israel which has opened a new and dangerous dimension in the situation in the Middle East? Would she exercise her influence on President Reagan to point out that he should be more even-handed and that in committing himself to supporting one of the parties in the dispute, which incidentally is still illegally occupying large tracts of Arab land, he cannot help to bring about a comprehensive peace settlement?

The Prime Minister: We are all naturally anxious, as is my hon. Friend, to bring about a comprehensive peace settlement and to secure conditions under which both Israel and Syria can withdraw from the Lebanon and the President of the Lebanon can go ahead with seeking a reconciliation between the many factions in the Lebanon, which is a difficult enough job on its own. We have to consider how best to go about that very delicate task.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: Would the Prime Minister not agree that since the French are doing so well out of the CAP, to expect any French President to volunteer co-operation on reform of the CAP would be as unrealistic as to expect turkeys collectively to ask for Christmas to be brought forward by three months? Would the Prime Minister agree that the words "a deep renegotiation" have been used over and over again but that we have never actually seen that? Can we have an assurance from her that she is not prepared to allow the EC to founder on the rocks of the CAP, even if it means fundamental renegotiation of the treaty itself?

The Prime Minister: I feel that fundamental renegotiation of the treaty itself is unlikely. If the hon. Member looks at the clauses in the treaty relating to the common agricultural policy he will not find that the problems arise from the treaty clauses. At the beginning of the CAP it was thought that it would be more or less self-sufficient because the levies were to bring incoming goods up to the European price. It was expected that it would be self-sufficient, and it was until the big surpluses developed.
With regard to the surpluses, I think the hon. Gentleman is being unjust to the President of France in any suggestion that France was one of the most difficult countries on reform of the CAP. That is not so. There were other countries that wanted to be able to opt out of doing their part in cutting down the surpluses. The President of France was one who agreed that we had to take steps to cut down the surpluses. Each of us then tries to fight our own corner and to see that it is done in a way that is not too harmful to our farmers. For example, I am particularly anxious that we should not get both an increase in the co-responsibility levy and in the super-levy because we have to pay a lot of co-responsibility levy compared with milk production. All those are detailed things which I still hold Heads of Government should not be left to discuss at a European Council of that kind.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I welcome my right hon. Friend's robust and determined stance at the summit conference in Athens. Additional nations are about to join the European Community, which will cost existing members a great deal of money. Bearing in mind her last remarks, would she not agree that it is unfair for the British dairy producer, the most efficient in Europe, to bear the burden of any agreement that might be made within the European Community, particularly in relation to the co-responsibility levy and the super-levy which is proposed

by the European Commission and which will prejudice and be to the tremendous disadvantage of the dairy sector an this country?

The Prime Minister: The enlargement to include Spain and Portugal would add extra cost to the budget, which is why both Germany and ourselves have had to insist that we could not bear the full burden of that increase. Therefore, we cannot take the enlargement on the present pattern of contributions. We have to have a changed pattern. That is precisely the point on which we are fighting. My hon. Friend will agree that in political terms it is, I believe, to everyone's advantage and also to the advantage of Spain and Portugal to have them politically within the Community.
With regard to the dairy problem, my hon. Friend has put his finger on one of the great problems which effect our farmers. We have 15 per cent. of the milk production of the Community and we pay 19 per cent. of the co-responsibility levy because of the way in which that levy is arranged across the Community. Therefore, when it comes to thinking about the super-levy, one of the points we are making strongly is that there must be no discrimination. Once one goes on that route there are so many exception and derogations, and they tend to be made in a way which is damaging to our farmers.

Rev. Martin Smyth: We welcome the robust presentation of the statement today, we share the Prime Minister's conviction about coalition government and we welcome the defence of agriculture within an industrial nation because it is precious to Northern Ireland. The Prime Minister referred to a conversation with the Greek Premier. I understand that she also spent some time with the premier of the Irish Republic and that her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland took the opportunity of an earlier European meeting to meet the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Irish Republic. Was the prevention of terrorism in Northern Ireland discussed, or was that one of the subjects on which, to use the words of the statement, there were unsatisfactory compromises and "the will to control it effectively was just not present".

The Prime Minister: I had a brief discussion with the Taoiseach. What was said was confidential, but it would not cause the hon. Gentleman any concern. It was a routine meeting such as we usually have in the margins on these occasions. I also had quick conversations with the Prime Minister of Greece. Again, there is nothing further to report. This House is concerned, as he is and as the President of Cyprus is, that a unitary state of Cyprus be restored. We are taking all reasonable steps to that end.

Mr. Edgar Graham

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Butler): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the murder earlier today of Mr. Edgar Graham. I do so on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State who is in Northern Ireland.
Mr. Edgar Graham, a member of the Northern Ireland Assembly, was murdered at 10.50 this morning outside Queen's university, Belfast, where he lectured. While talking to a colleague on the pavement, he was approached by two youths on foot who fired a number of shots and then fled. The Provisional IRA has claimed responsibility for the murder. A full police inquiry was mounted immediately.
I know that the whole House will join me in extending sympathy to Mr. Graham's family, as also to those right hon. and hon. Members who were his colleagues. The House will also wish to join me in expressing total condemnation of this outrage.
Edgar Graham was the kind of young man who is needed in Northern Ireland politics. His intellectual gifts would have enabled him to make a good career in any number of fields. He chose to devote them to the process of democracy. At 28, he was already a senior figure in his party, including being secretary of the Ulster Unionist Council.
I can speak with personal knowledge of his political skills and penetrating mind as Chairman of the Finance and Personnel Committee of the Northern Ireland Assembly. I therefore express my own feelings as well as those of the Government in lamenting his untimely death.

Mr. Peter Archer: The whole House will feel a sense of loss at the murder of a young man of 28 by butchers masquerading as heroes. We all join the Minister in extending our sympathy to Mr. Graham's family and friends in their shock and bereavement. Members in all parts of the House, irrespective of political commitment, will recognise that Northern Ireland and the world have been deprived of talents which they can ill afford to lose and for which I as a lawyer can vouch.
Will the Minister confirm that, while every effort should and will be made to bring the murderers to justice and to ensure security on the streets of Northern Ireland, no measures can guarantee security until the communities of Northern Ireland have learnt to live together, and that if they are to live in a normal, stable community those who believe in constitutional democratic government must show that it can resolve issues between those who differ from one another? Will the Minister also appeal to those who, understandably, feel a sense of outrage and stress to them that measures of retaliation and escalation of the violence will merely reward the murderers with the very objective which they set out to achieve?

Mr. Butler: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his opening remarks and for the total condemnation that he expressed. He is right to draw attention to wider aspects of the Northern Ireland scene. I agree with him that the problems there can be resolved only when the two communities have found ways to live harmoniously together. He is also right to refer to retaliation. If there was one purpose behind the brutal murder of Mr. Graham, I suspect that it was to bring about

a spate of retaliatory measures. I share the right hon. and learned Gentleman's view that that must not be allowed to happen.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: On behalf of my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), whom the Secretary of State, following this event, asked to meet him in Belfast, may I ask whether the Minister is aware that the expressions of loss and sympathy from both Front Benches, which have been echoed by the whole House, will be noted and appreciated both by the bereaved and by all our fellow citizens in Northern Ireland?
May I also ask the Government what message they believe that those who ordered the murder intended to transmit and to whom that message was addressed?

Mr. Butler: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was, of course, in two minds about whether to make the statement to the House himself, but he was in Northern Ireland this morning and decided that he should stay in the Province. He has already had a meeting with the Chief Constable and with the Commander Land Forces.
It is not for me to say what message was intended by those who ordered the murder. What is important is the response to it. I expressed my feelings on that in reply to the first question.

Rev. Martin Smyth: The Front Bench statements are to be welcomed, but they leave me a little perplexed. I am sure that they will also leave many people in Northern Ireland perplexed. I speak as the constituency Member for Belfast, South and as a colleague of Edgar Graham, who represented south Belfast with me in the Assembly. I worked with him in the Business Committee of the Assembly. I therefore know something of the tremendous loss suffered by the people of Ulster and the United Kingdom at large. Had Edgar Graham been alive on the morrow, he would have been here in Westminster consulting senior Members and Back Benchers.
I disagree with the view that the purpose of the killing was simply to cause community strife. I believe that it was part of a calculated nose-thumbing snub to this House and to the security forces to kill a man such as Edgar Graham, who took a firm line on law and order and not long ago appeared on the media calling on people not to take retaliatory action.
I should have liked the Minister making the statement today to be in a position, even at such short notice, to explain why, although the security forces had been made aware of an imminent attack on a prominent Unionist, and had been made aware by me personally that the most vulnerable member was Edgar Graham, no action was taken to provide the protection which is now proved to have been necessary.
I regret that throughout the past 14 years people have gone through the ritual, pietistic condemnation of murder and violence, but when the security forces start doing the job for which they are trained and getting at the terrorists the self-same people put pressure on the security forces to stop. I hope that the message from this Parliament today will be that the security forces, who already have enormous constraints upon them under the law, should not constantly be penalised, while sacrificing their lives, by the knowledge that if they do not hit fast and hit the right person they will immediately be apprehended and


charged, and will then languish awaiting trial. The lives of our security forces are at stake, and the lives of many other people in Northern Ireland likewise.

Mr. Butler: The hon. Gentleman speaks with the depth of feeling that one would expect from a close friend and colleague of Edgar Graham. The forces of law and order must and will continue to operate under the law. They will get the full support, as they have done, of the Government.
As to the report of an imminent attack on Edgar Graham, certainly there was a suggestion that he was at greater risk. It is worth my putting on record the fact that, as a consequence, there was a meeting on 24 November, between him and a member of the security branch of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, who gave advice both about further protection of his home and of his person. I understand that Mr. Graham did not ask for full personal protection.

Rev. William McCrea: I join every right hon. and hon. Member in expressing my deep and sincere regret at the tragic and brutal murder of Mr. Edgar Graham. I certainly express my deep sympathy to the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), the leader of the Official Unionist party.
I must ask the Minister some pertinent questions. Condemnation of this act is not sufficient. Yesterday the people of Ulster were faced with armed and hooded men standing in their streets, yet they were not in any way dealt with by the security forces. Is it not correct that on the Sabbath evening armed men were shot by the SAS, in my opinion quite correctly? If it was correct on the Sabbath evening to do that, why was it not correct yesterday, when armed and hooded men were standing in the streets of Ulster?
Will the Minister answer a solemn question? Does he agree that the time has come for Sinn Fein to be outlawed when Gerry Adams puts the beret and gloves on the coffin of an IRA murderer? Does the Minister agree that it is possible that a competition of murder could now ensue between the INLA and the Provisional IRA against Loyalist politicians? Indeed, is it not possible that someone sitting in the House today may be waiting to be carried out in a box after another IRA assassination?
Is it not time—I say this with sincerity of heart—that every effort was made to put down these brutal murderers, thugs and scum, and to ensure that Ulster gets back to peace and its rightful prosperity as a part of this great United Kingdom?

Mr. Butler: The hon. Gentleman has raised a point that causes anxiety to many hon. Members—the appearance of hooded men at funerals. This is observed closely by the security forces and, where possible, follow-up action is taken.
The hon. Gentleman suggested the outlawing of Sinn Fein, which has been mooted in the House on previous occasions. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will read what the hon. Gentleman said. However, I ask the hon. Gentleman, even in the great emotions of this day, not to raise unduly the anxieties of those who might be the targets of assassins. I believe that that is one of the terrorists' aims. Every effort will continue to be made to overcome terrorism. Progress has been made, and the performance by the security forces this year has been better even than it was last year, which I believe was the best for some decades.

Mr. William Ross: For 15 years successive Governments have pursued a policy of trying to buy off Republican demands with a series of concessions, large and small, which have done nothing but fan the flames of Republican violence. Will this Government now make the massive and comprehensive changes in political activity and in security policy which are clearly needed to destroy the IRA?

Mr. Butler: I spoke a moment ago of the progress that had been made in that area. Therefore, I must repudiate the suggestion that the tactics employed by the security forces are a failure. They are not. They must be fully supported, and if in the light of today's events improvements can be made, they will be made. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State chose to stay in Northern Ireland today to meet the Chief Constable and the Commander Land Forces.

Mr. K. Harvey Proctor: What has been the increase in terrorist activity in Northern Ireland since the Maze breakout in September?

Mr. Butler: I cannot answer that question exactly. I am aware of no connection between the Maze breakout and the level of terrorist activity since that time.

Mr. Stephen Ross: May I associate the Liberal party and the Social Democratic party with the condolences expressed about today's ghastly act? I especially offer condolences to our colleagues in the House from the Official Unionist party, who must be feeling dreadful now. Surely it is not good enough that those who have the courage to play a full part in the politics of Northern Ireland, and who are offered the help of the security forces, can turn it down. The House is beholden to give to those who are active in political life in Northern Ireland the security and protection which they obviously need, and I beg them to accept it when it is offered to them.

Mr. Butler: Clearly it must be for the individual to decide whether he accepts full personal protection. In the same way, it is for the Chief Constable and those who judge such matters to assess the degree of risk to which any person is put. If personal security is increased to a high level, it might have some impact on the deployment of resources in other directions.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: May I humbly endorse what has been said on both sides of the House about the murder of a fine Ulsterman and a fine Unionist, who was to have addressed our Back-Bench Committee tomorrow? On the wider questions that have been raised, I invite my hon. Friend to consider carefully what was said by the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth), not in questioning my hon. Friend, but in questioning the Prime Minister. The hon. Gentleman spoke of the responsibility of the Irish Republic, since the Government of that country as well as the British Government must be concerned with the prevention and suppression of terrorism. Are the Government now satisfied that there is the fullest cooperation between the two Governments? If not, will Her Majesty's Government use every means possible to influence, and if necessary to put pressure upon, the Irish Government?

Mr. Butler: I agree with my hon. Friend that there must be co-operation on security matters across the border, and I assure him that the Prime Minister of Ireland is equal


to our Prime Minister not only in condemning the violence but in his determination to overcome it. That means co-operation.

Mr. Martin Flannery: As chairman of the Northern Ireland departmental committee of the parliamentary Labour party, may I say that our hearts go out to the relatives and the colleagues of this poor man who has been shot. I hope that no impassioned words spoken in the House will ever lead to retaliation, because all our efforts should be aimed at reconciliation and to proper political discussion of the problems. There should be no harsh words which would breed more of the sectarian fratricide that goes on already in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Butler: The hon. Gentleman speaks from experience, and I hope that his words will be listened to.

Mr. John David Taylor: I thank the Minister for his statement, and I express my sympathy for the family and relatives of Mr. Edgar Graham, who was a colleague of mine in the Assembly, where he represented a part of my Westminster constituency. He was, as the Minister said, one of our most promising young politicians in Northern Ireland, and only yesterday I was speaking to the deputy leader of the Conservative party in Brussels about the possibility of Mr. Graham being a candidate in Europe for our Province. From my experience of the IRA, I know how his family feel at this time.
I am concerned about one point in the Minister's statement. He said that the police called on Edgar Graham to advise him that there was a threat, but that he did not ask for security and therefore it was not provided. Am I to understand that personal security for people in Northern Ireland is provided only at the invitation of persons, rather than at the suggestion of the RUC?

Mr. Butler: It is important that my supplementary statement should be clear, because I did not say that he was offered full personal security. I said that a special meeting, resulting from the threat that was said to have arisen, was held at his house, and advice was given specifically in regard to added protection at his house, and action followed on that. Secondly, he was given advice as to how to reduce the risk to his person, principally in such things as varying his routes, which may have been relevant in the circumstances. He was not offered full personal protection, but neither did he ask for it.

Powers of Criminal Courts (Amendment)

Mr. Alex Carlile: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to enable the criminal courts of England and Wales to pass wholly and partly suspended youth custody orders; and for connected purposes.
The Criminal Justice Act 1982 replaced orders of borstal training with youth custody orders and also reduced the minimum period for detention centre orders. Much of the thinking behind the changes was designed to give the courts much needed flexibility in sentencing young offenders, especially in the light of the long and frustrating experience which the courts had as a result of part I of the Criminal Justice Act 1961.
Undoubtedly, the Criminal Justice Act 1982 has brought about improvements. Judges are now able to make subjective assessments both of the case and of the offender and determine the length of youth custody orders, whereas under the old borstal provisions they were not free to determine the length of borstal orders. However, there have been cases in which it has been found that there remains a shackle that ties the courts. That shackle is the non-availablility of either wholly or partly suspended youth custody orders and the non-availability of suspended youth custody supervision orders.
This problem was highlighted by Lord Lane, the Lord Chief Justice, in the Court of Appeal criminal division, in the recent case of Regina v. Dobbs, which was reported in the law report in The Times dated 8 November this year. It is a good example of the type of case in which a partly suspended youth custody order might arise. The accused, Dobbs, was a young man of excellent previous character and reputation. One night, in drink and out of character, he attacked an innocent man who was out walking his dog. His behaviour was barbaric, and a custodial sentence was inevitable. A detention centre order would have been too short, and unsuitable for the defendent. On the other hand, a wholly served custodial sentence could have done far more harm than good from the public standpoint.
The Lord Chief Justice, giving the judgment of the Court of Appeal, said:
Doubtless, from the point of view of the public and the victim, a comparatively lengthy term of custody was appropriate … On the other hand, one would like, having made the point, to allow the young man his liberty after a certain length of sentence had been served.
The "clang of the prison gates", as it has often been called, within a sentencing framework acceptable to the public might be the most effective sanction, without the need for a lengthy period of custody to be served. The totality of that sanction cannot be obtained under the present law.
There are undoubtedly cases in which wholly suspended sentences would be suitable for young offenders. While the interests of the public and of the victim may demand the imposition of a custodial sentence, in some cases there are special reasons where total suspension of the sentence may be effective and ensure that, while the offender does not undergo all the difficulties of being taken out of the community and having to resume life within the community, he will not re-offend. It is as bad as that. In some cases judges, in reality, face the choice between a wholly served youth


custody order and an order of conditional discharge. That can never be a satisfactory choice for a judge to have to make.
I hope that the net effect of my proposals would be some reduction in the number of young offenders held in custody—an aim that I share with the Secretary of State for Social Services, who spoke to that effect in Birmingham yesterday. It is by no means a measure that would weaken the authority of the criminal courts. It can only strengthen the role of the courts in dealing with the young offender by removing unnecessary restrictions.
In the case of Dobbs, to which I referred, the Lord Chief Justice, in his customarily straightforward way, expressed the hope that Parliament would
see fit to make it possible
to pass suspended youth custody sentences. His hopes have support on both sides of the House. I ask right hon. and hon. Members not to ignore those hopes, but rather to translate them into the useful legislation that my proposal would represent.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Alex Carlile, Mr. Roy Jenkins, Mr. Eldon Griffiths, Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk, Mr. A. J. Beith, Mr. Robert Maclennan, Mr. David Ashby, Mr. Gerald Bermingham, Mr. Stephen Ross, Mr. Simon Hughes and Mr. David Alton.

POWERS OF CRIMINAL COURTS (AMENDMENT)

Mr. Alex Carlile accordingly presented a Bill to enable the criminal courts of England and Wales to pass wholly and partly suspended youth custody orders; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon 16 March and to be printed. [Bill 71.]

Orders of the Day — Town and Country Planning Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Neil Macfarlane): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
As the long title implies, the subject matter of this Bill is the application to Crown land of the enactments relating to town and country planning. Right from the time of the 1947 planning legislation, which laid the foundation of our present system of land use control, planning permission has not been required for development carried out by the Crown itself, and the present Bill does not affect this principle. The legislation has, however, always sought to control activities carried out by other people on land owned by the Crown. Section 266 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, which is now the principal planning Act for England and Wales, therefore includes provisions—based on similar provisions in the 1947 Act —which apply certain parts of the Act to Crown land
to the extent of any interest therein for the time being held otherwise than by or on behalf of the Crown".
This Bill is primarily related to those provisions in section 266 and to the equivalent provisions in the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972.
It might be helpful if I begin by saying what we mean by Crown land. As defined in section 266, the term means land in which there is a Crown interest or a Duchy interest. A Crown interest is an interest belonging to Her Majesty in right of the Crown, or an interest belonging to a Government Department. A Duchy interest means an interest belonging to Her Majesty in right of the Duchy of Lancaster or belonging to the Duchy of Cornwall. While I shall for convenience refer to land owned by Government Departments, it should be remembered that the term has that wider meaning, and for that reason we have kept closely in touch with the Crown Estate Commissioners and with the two Duchies over the preparation of the Bill.
When a landowner sells land for development, he will normally first obtain an outline planning permission for the proposed development, and the land will then be valued on the basis of that permission. It has always been recognised that, when a Government Department is selling surplus land, the Department cannot make such an application and it has sometimes been the practice to invite either the prospective purchaser or a third party to make a mutually agreed application for planning permission.
We have been considering that practice, and, as my hon. Friend who is now the Under-Secretary of State for Energy told the House on 12 May, we have now concluded that it is invalid. The reason lies in the basic constitutional principle that an Act of Parliament applies to the Crown only to the extent that the Act itself specifically provides. Because of the wording of section 266, the planning legislation does not apply to land in which no one, apart from the Crown, has an existing interest, which is normally the situation in disposal cases. If planning legislation does not apply, it follows that no planning application can be made.
Until now Departments have had an alternative procedure available when disposing of surplus land. That


procedure was set out in circular 49/63 of the former Ministry of Housing and Local Government. It involved asking the local planning authority whether the proposed development would have been permitted if an application had been made for planning permission.
That procedure fell short of obtaining the benefit of planning permission, and many valuers believed that it acted as an impediment to the disposal of land and the realisation of maximum values. It led to the real danger of land being sold by Government Departments at less than its full potential value because purchasers were inclined to discount the price to protect against the uncertainties of planning permission, and, in extreme cases, land could be rendered unsaleable.
The problem was highlighted in the report of an inquiry into under-used and surplus property in the National Health Service which was made to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services in November last year. The committee, in paragraph 1.4 of its report, said:
In particular, Crown authorities have been regarded as unable to obtain planning permission for the property they occupy. This has been an impediment and has affected the attitudes of local planning authorities to property occupied by the NHS. This situation has led, on the one hand, to NHS authorities resorting to unorthodox procedures in an attempt to obtain the best value from the sale of property whilst on the other hand the income from some transactions has been less than that which would have arisen had the same property changed hands in the private sector.
The committee, in paragraph 5.7, went on to recommend that legislation should be enacted to enable health authorities to obtain planning permission in their own right, so putting them in the same position as private sector property owners. The Bill does just that.
There is now another problem about the alternative procedure. The circular provides that, if the local planning authority and the disposing Department are unable to reach agreement, either party may ask the Secretary of State for an opinion. In a judgment given only last month, the High Court decided that that procedure was invalid in certain respects. When a subsequent planning application is made, the local planning authority would normally be expected to adhere to the Secretary of State's opinion, and the judge considered that this was an improper constraint on the authority's exercise of its functions. While it might be possible to revise the circular to ensure that objectors have the opportunity to make their views known and to give the authority clear and explicit freedom to reject the Secretary of State's opinion, that would make the procedure an even less satisfactory basis for the valuation of surplus Government land.
Those are our reasons for the urgent introduction of the Bill. It is clearly in the public interest that, when the Government are disposing of surplus land, the best possible price should be obtained. It would be quite wrong to allow the developer to make a windfall profit because the development potential of the land was not fully reflected in the purchase price. The best way in which to ensure that is to allow the land to be sold with the benefit of planning permission. That is what happens when land is sold by a private individual. The Bill will make it possible for Crown land to be sold in the same way. It will make it unnecessary for Government Departments to

continue to use informal procedures which, because of their very informality, are open to the criticism that they do not properly protect the rights of third parties.
I shall now deal with the detailed provisions of the Bill. Its essence is contained in clause 1 which enables Crown land, or an interest in it, such as a lease, to be disposed of with the benefit of planning permission, listed building consent, consent for the demolition of a building in a conservation area or a determination about the need for planning permission for a particular use or operation.
Clause 1 enables the necessary application to be made by the Government Department or Crown authority concerned, or by any other person authorised to do so. I should stress that a private individual would not be able to make an application for planning permission for the development of Crown land without the written consent of the Government Department or Crown authority concerned. Any permission or consent would relate only to development carried out by persons other than the Crown.
It is only right that I should draw specific attention to subsection (8) which validates permissions or consents already granted in relation to Crown land in which there is no other subsisting interest. I know that the House is understandably wary of retrospective legislation but when planning applications have been made and determined in good faith and the development has already been carried out it would seem wrong that the planning position should be thrown into a state of uncertainty because of a technical problem which bears no relation to the merits of the development.
I know, for example, that my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland) is worried about builders who have purchased land from the Forestry Commission in the Forest of Dean. It was the commission's practice to require purchasers to obtain a grant of planning permission before the sale was completed, and those builders — and members of the public who have purchased houses from them—are now worried about their legal position.
There are also cases which relate to the sale of surplus hospital sites. I know of at least three—in Sheffield, Darlington and Battersea — where disposal procedures were already under way before last May's announcement and where the planning position must be resolved quickly.
There is a special problem concerning the Fazackerley hospital site in Liverpool in the constituency of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer). Following a disagreement between the planning and hospital authorities about the future development of the site, the matter was referred to my right hon. Friend who ordered an informal public inquiry into the planning merits. The inquiry has been arranged but cannot now go ahead because of the High Court ruling, although the planning authority and the applicants are equally anxious for the applications to proceed to a decision. In a case such as that, it would be a waste of time and effort all round if the applicants had no alternative but to obtain some highly artificial short-term interest in the site and then to start again with a new application.
In a second Liverpool case, the Crofton hospital site in the constituency of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton), planning approval has been given on appeal but the validity of the permission has been


questioned. In London, the Royal College of Physicians is worried about the validity of the planning permissions for its major scheme at St. Andrew's place, Camden.
The need for the Bill is therefore clear, and it is extremely difficult to see how anyone will be harmed by it. I hope that the House will be willing to agree to it, bearing in mind the circumstances.
We have taken the opportunity provided by the Bill to deal with three other problems which relate to the application of planning legislation to Crown land.

Mr. Sydney Chapman: I agree with what my hon. Friend is trying to do. An appropriate authority should be able to seek planning permission, before disposing of land, in order to get the maximum market value. However, I am still unclear, after carefully comparing clause 1(2) with clause 1(5), whether the appropriate authority, in the event of a planning application being refused, will have the right, as would any other applicant under the Town and Country Planning Act, to appeal to the Secretary of State against such a decision. Could my hon. Friend enlighten me on that point?

Mr. Macfarlane: I shall come to those matters shortly. The intention is that they should have that right.

Mr. Anthony Steen: Does my hon. Friend think that the passing of this legislation will help to release some of the 110,000 acres currently vacant on the register? Will it help to expedite the sale of publicly owned land held by health authorities?

Mr. Macfarlane: We have to be careful about the definition of "land". The lands on the registers are not all Crown lands. That is the main purpose of the Bill. On the other hand, the Bill will be of some modest help in achieving what my hon. Friend wants.
As I said, we have taken the opportunity provided by the Bill to deal with three other problems. The first relates to action against unauthorised development. Section 266 of the 1971 Act has the effect of allowing a planning authority to serve an enforcement notice where development has been carried out in breach of planning control by a person who has an interest in Crown land, such as a lease, and the Government Department or Crown authority owning the land agrees. The position is the same in Scotland. However, no such action can be taken if there is no private interest in the Crown land and development is carried out on the land by a trespasser.
It seems highly undesirable that a trespasser should be in a better position than a lessee in this respect. One example of the problem is where a mobile or semi-permanent snack bar is operating in a lay-by on a trunk road. In that situation my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Transport, Scotland and Wales have powers to intervene if there is a hazard to road safety on the highway, but quite often the objections are made on environmental grounds, for which planning powers are a better remedy. Some local authorities have expressed concern about their lack of enforcement powers in that situation.
Clause 2 would therefore allow a planning authority to issue a special enforcement notice where it considers that undesirable development has been carried out on Crown land by someone other than the Crown at a time when no one is entitled to occupy the land by virtue of a private

interest in it. The service of such notice will require the consent of the Government Department or Crown authority concerned, and this is more than a formality. The authority would have to be satisfied before giving consent that it is right for such action to be taken. The right of appeal against a special enforcement notice would be more limited than in the case of an ordinary enforcement notice. As the action will normally be taken against a person who has no right to be on the land, we consider that he should not be able to raise issues relating to the planning merits or what he has done, but should be restricted to the factual grounds of whether what is alleged has actually taken place and whether it amounts to development.
Clause 3 relates to licences, or, in respect of Scotland, to contracts giving the right to occupy Crown land. A licence does not normally create an interest in land, and Crown land occupied by virtue of a licence is not, therefore, caught by the provisions of section 266 when no other person has an interest in the land. In Scotland, certain contracts in writing may create the same situation under corresponding Scottish provisions. We have discovered that quite significant development, such as drilling an exploratory borehole for oil, can be carried out by a person who is only a licensee. If the development is taking place on Crown land in which there is no other interest, it is at present exempt from planning control. Clearly that is a gap in the law that needs to be plugged. The clause therefore provides that a person who occupies Crown land by virtue of a licence or contract in writing shall be regarded as having an interest in the land for certain purposes of section 266 of the 1971 Act and the equivalent Scottish provision. That will bring into play the provisions of the 1971 and 1972 Acts relating to planning control and listed building control.
Consequently, when a licensee uses land in a way that is materially different from the Crown's use, the licensee's activities will be within planning control, and the local planning authority will be able to take enforcement action against any breach of control. The provisions of clause 1 in relation to applications in anticipation of a disposal of Crown land will also apply.
One other proposed modification to the present law arises from this clause. The right of appeal to the Secretary of State against an enforcement notice is available only to people who have an "interest" in the land to which the enforcement notice relates. At present, that interest does not include a licence. Because the Bill provides that a written licence is to be treated as an "interest" in Crown land for the purposes of planning control, it is logical that people with any licence in writing should have a right of appeal to the Secretary of State against an ordinary enforcement notice. Clause 3 so provides, and it will apply to enforcement notices, including those affecting land which is not Crown land, which relate to breaches of planning and of listed building control.
Clause 4 deals with problems which can arise over temporary changes of use carried out by the Crown. If an ordinary landowner, for example, wishes to make a material change in the use of his premises, planning permission is required, and the planning authority has the power to impose a time limit or to make the permission personal to the applicant. Because the Crown does not require planning permission to carry out development, no such condition can be imposed when the Crown makes a


material change in the use of premises, even though both the Crown and the planning authority intend the change to be a temporary one.
The difficulty is that, once the Crown has made the material change of use, the new use is lawful for all planning purposes, and a third party may be able to step in and take advantage of it. We know of at least one case, involving premises leased to a Government Department, where the freeholder sought to do just that. Neither the planning authority nor the Department concerned was in a position to do anything about the situation, even though it had been agreed between them that the change of use would last only while the Department occupied the premises. To ensure that the planning authority is not left unprotected in that situation, clause 4 would empower the Crown and a planning authority to enter into a binding agreement which would prevent the use of land for a purpose begun by the Crown from being continued by some other person without a grant of plannning permission. There are provisions for ensuring that any purchaser is made aware that such an agreement has been made.
The remaining two clauses deal with incidental matters. Clause 5 contains the definiton of Crown land, to which I have already referred, and also includes a provision which will enable the Bill, when it is passed, to be applied to the Isles of Scilly. As there is no convenient way of incorporating the Bill into the existing planning Acts by way of amendment, the clause provides instead for the Bill's provisions to have effect as if they were included in that legislation.
Clause 6 provides for the legislation to come into force four months after enactment, rather than the normal two months, to allow time for the necessary regulations to be made, although clause 2, relating to special enforcement notices, applies to any development carried out after the passing of the Act. Finally, the legislation does not extend to Northern Ireland, where the Government are also the planning authority and the main problem does not, therefore, arise.
This short Bill makes some technical but necessary changes to the way in which the planning system applies to Crown land, but leaves untouched the position that has existed since 1948 in respect of the Crown's own development. It is urgently needed to ensure that, when surplus Crown land is sold, a proper price is obtained which fully reflects the development potential of the land, and the urgency has increasd by reason of the High Court judgment to which I have referred. As a result, there has not been time for the full consultation that we would ideally have wished to carry out before introducing the Bill, but we are more than ready to consider constructive suggestions about ways in which it might be improved.
I commend the Bill to the House.

Dr. David Clark: The Bill could well be described as a rush job to save the Government considerable embarrassment.
The need for the Bill became apparent as a result of the Government's mistaken policy of actively encouraging the National Health Service to dispose of land and buildings, because of the financial constraints. It is ironic that this

Government, who were encouraging the NHS to assetstrip—a policy to which Opposition Members strongly object—were caught out by their principal backers, the property speculators.
Let us look at the history of the events that led to the Bill and to the need for it, which we accept. The East Dorset area health authority brought the problem to light. It sought planning permission to increase the value of a disused children's home at Christchurch. As a result, doubts arose about whether the Crown, or its agents, could apply for planning permission post sale. The Government's Law Officers reached the conclusion that it could not do so, because section 266 of the 1971 Act precluded that.
In his aim to be brief, the Minister perhaps glossed over some of the Government's bungling. We are now asked to pass this legislation as a matter of urgency—which we accept—but it is strange that we have had to wait so long for it. It was plain, certainly last May, that the situation needed urgent action. The hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw), who was the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment at the time, came to the House and urged local authorities to discontinue the system that they had been operating and to work under an old system.
The hon. Gentleman said then that
the Government will continue, when disposing of land, to use the present informal procedures for obtaining opinions from local planning authorities on what development if any they would regard as acceptable. These are laid down for England and Wales in circular 49/63 of the former Ministry of Housing and Local Government". — [Official Report, 12 May 1983; Vol. 42, c. 463.]
As the Minister mentioned today, almost in passing, that was bad advice. Indeed, it was unlawful advice.
This is a serious point, and it is worth looking at The Times law report of 22 November, when it was ruled that the Ministry had been acting unlawfully. Mr. Justice Mann said that the West Sussex area health authority had applied to Worthing borough council for planning permission and the borough council felt that it would be undesirable on grounds of overcrowding. It therefore told the area health authority that it would refuse planning permission.
The West Sussex area health authority subsequently applied to the Secretary of State, and amazingly enough:
The secretary of state gave his opinion that he would have been prepared to grant such permission.
Subsequently, a planning application came before the council for development of the site in accordance with the secretary of state's opinion, and the planning officer recommended that it grant permission as not to do so would be contrary to the intention of the secretary of state.
In his Lordship' s judgment, the practical effect of such an opinion from the secretary of state would be to constrain a local authority to act in accordance with it and grant permission, thereby precluding the possibility of a local public inquiry or other appellate procedure and depriving local objectors of the rights and advantages conferred on them.
It is important to state clearly that the Government were acting unlawfully. As a result of that judgment on 22 November, we are now forced to take urgent action.
The Opposition can understand the Government's difficulty. We disapprove vehemently of their policy on the NHS, from where the Bill has emanated. However, like the Government, we are adamant that if profits are to be accrued from the disposal of land, the benefits should go to the community or the Health Service and not to private speculators. Therefore, we are happy to help the Government to improve the Bill and to ensure its speedy passage.
This is an important constitutional Bill, and it is right and proper that it should be discussed in prime parliamentary time. It highlights the fact that many developments carried out on Crown land since 1971 have been unauthorised. The Sunday Times last week claimed that there were hundreds of cases, and that is probably right. We are all probably aware of various office developments, the Shell Oil drilling escapade in the New Forest and the operation of various private mines throughout the country. Consequently, this is a serious constitutional matter.
The Minister offered to be as open as possible and was sorry that the consultation period had not been as long as we would have liked. I am aware that there is concern in planning circles about the shortness of the consultation period. Is the Minister absolutely satisfied that the Bill rectifies the problem and puts matters right, especially with regard to permissions and developments that have taken place in the last 12 years? Some legal opinion thinks that clause 1(8) may be defective.
I have discussed this matter with lawyers, and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) wants to develop this argument. It is vital to get the Bill right, because in rushing something through there is always a danger of making a slip. I therefore hope that the Minister will be accommodating to those who have doubts and will look at any suggestions that may be made by hon. Members and others.
Although we support the Bill's basic aim, I am surprised that the measure is not an amendment to the 1971 Act. It is a pity that the opportunity has not been taken to improve some other parts of that Act. For example, the Opposition would have helped to steer through measures relating to the control of hazardous substances. There was also a need to tackle the anomalous compensation provisions of the Act, and an amendment is urgently needed to the Opencast Coal Act 1958 to bring the NCB, the opencast planning procedure, within the ambit of local authority machinery. I regret that the Government have not taken this opportunity to make those amendments to the 1971 Act to improve overall planning procedure.
The Government contend that there will be only a minor increase in work as a result of the Bill. What is the current manpower level in the planning section of the Minister's Department? Has there been a great reduction? One suggestion is that there has been a 30 per cent. reduction in staff who deal with planning and other strategic issues. If so, I suspect that there will be more problems due to lack of staff at the centre to co-ordinate and check many of these pieces of legislation.
The Government should understand that much uncertainty is created by the fact that this is not amending legislation. Many people dealing with such matters are not lawyers, yet they will have to handle the legislation. That may cause difficulties.
The Bill will enable planning authorities to take enforcement action against trespassers on Crown land, and introduces procedures under which the use of land for the purpose begun by the Crown cannot be continued by some other person without the granting of planning permission. In both those circumstances the permission of the Crown—in most cases that means a Government Department — is necessary before the procedures can be brought into operation.
The Opposition can see no justification for a local authority having to seek the agreement of a Government

Department in such circumstances. The local authority is responsible for development control, not a Government Department. This is yet another example of how local democracy is threatened. Such decisions should be taken locally and be democratically accountable. Therefore, we cannot understand why the consent of a Government Department needs to be obtained.
Another clause deals with special enforcement procedures for action against trespassers on Crown land and enables local planning authorities to take normal enforcement action against licensees operating on Crown land. We welcome and understand the ability to take enforcement action, but we are concerned about the complications that the Bill introduces.
Under the proposed arrangements, before taking enforcement action a local authority will have to do several things. First, it will have to establish that the land involved is Crown land. Secondly, it will have to discover whether the operator in question is a licensee or a trespasser on Crown land. Thirdly, if the operator is a trespasser, it will have to initiate special enforcement procedures and seek the agreement of the relevant Government Department. Lastly, it will have to take the necessary enforcement action.
There is a real problem with the existing legislation, but we have approached it in a rather complex manner. The Government have ignored the fact that many of the problems which the Bill is designed to tackle result from the Crown's rather anomalous position under planning and building control legislation.
I hope that the Government will give serious consideration to Crown developments. Many of the developments that are covered by the exemption are substantial and logically should come under planning and building control regulations. In some instances bodies that are effectively commercial organisations are placed in an advantageous position in comparison with non-Crown agents that operate in similar areas. Many Crown Office developments are no different from those undertaken by normal developers. Although the consultation procedures that are set out in circular 7/77 generally work satisfactorily, disagreements occur and anomalies result of the sort which the Bill is intended to tackle.
The association of the Government with the local authority should be much more flexible. Much more power must be retained by the local authority, which is the body especially familiar with the problems in its local area.
Many of the problems that arise in newly constructed National Health Service hospitals—for example, shallow drains and backfall gradients—could be overcome if the local building regulations were invoked and there were consultations with local authority experts.
The Opposition support the principle of the Bill and we acknowledge that there is a problem, but we are unhappy about the way in which the Government have handled the regulations over the past six months. We feel that they have acted in a dilatory manner, and we know that they have acted unlawfully. However, we shall do whatever we can to put matters right. We are worried about retrospective legislation and we hope that the Minister will act flexibly and accept some of our worries. We are prepared to help the Government place the Bill on the statute book, to put right that which is wrong and to ensure


that the National Health Service and the community as a whole derive the full benefit of any proper development that might take place.

Mr. Sydney Chapman: I think that the House will be grateful to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the clear and agreeably concise way in which he introduced the Bill, which is a narrow and tightly drawn measure of a highly technical nature. I congratulate him on his performance.
It is a pleasure for me to see that the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clarke) has been re-appointed as an Opposition Front Bench spokesman for environmental matters. I think that he was a little unfair in some of his comments, but I shall say no more than that because we have an agreeable pairing arrangement which I should not want to disrupt.
It is interesting that in essence this is an amendment Bill rather that a full Bill. It is one of the occasions on which I wish one could speak on Second Reading to a short title. If that were possible, one could range over the entire prospect of town and country planning legislation and development control procedures. Alas, we must adhere to the description in the long title.
I have two queries to put to my hon. Friend and three issues that I want to raise with him. Before doing so I shall declare a professional interest as a non-practising fellow of the Royal Town Planning Institute. It is not a financial interest, which is a pity, as we are discussing Crown land.
I do not know whether the Bill seeks to give "appropriate authorities", as defined in section 266 of the 1971 Act, the principal Act, the right to appeal against a planning refusal. My hon. Friend said that those authorities, their agents or licensees, or those who have a contract to occupy Crown land, have the right to appeal against an enforcement notice. Having read subsection (2), it seems that they may have a right, but if that is so wider and fundamental issues are raised. I do not necessarily disagree with my hon. Friend, but I think that the right should be written into the Bill.

Mr. Macfarlane: Any application under clause 1 will be a planning application for the purposes of planning legislation, and appeal procedures will apply. The point that my hon. Friend is seeking to make is well qualified in clause 1(2). If he reads the subsection, he will understand that his point is covered by it. I am most anxious that we should make progress and I shall try to be as flexible as possible.

Mr. Chapman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving the assurance that I sought. I am prepared to leave the matter there.
My second query turns on clause 1(3). This might be thought to be a Committee matter, but as I have an interest in trees I hope that I shall be excused for raising it on the Floor of the House. Does subsection (3) include applications to fell a tree or group of trees which may be the subject of a tree preservation order? The subsection refers to listed buildings and buildings in conservation areas. If I am permitted to use layman's language, if we are to have the grand slam, it might be thought appropriate to include applications to fell trees. I hope that such action will be taken as a last resort when the tree, or group of

trees, is the subject of a preservation order. I had the great honour recently to be elected the president of the Arboriculture Association.
I have no objection to the Bill in principle. I welcome it, because I believe that it removes a serious anomaly, but I am surprised that it has taken 20 years for the courts to decide that Governments might have been acting unlawfully. It was circular 49/63 which expressed the conventions of successive Governments in these matters. Whether that is a reflection on the tardiness of lawyers or the ability of Ministers to get their own way, I leave in the hands of the House.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State said that "appropriate authorities" as defined in the Bill own substantial amounts of land. That has been confirmed by the hon. Member for South Shields. I am told that the National Health Service owns no fewer than 50,000 acres in England alone. It is clear that the quality of estate management of all this Crown land is crucial. Some of the land might be in urban areas and might be lying unused or underused, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) has said. I believe that substantial tracts of land, especially NHS land, is public open space or land which forms part of what are confirmed as green belt areas.
While I believe in the quality of estate management, I do not believe that if the land is released it should necessarily be developed for urban purposes. It may be —I suggest that in most cases it will be—that the land should remain as a public open space for the enjoyment of all and sundry. Will my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary consider that matter, and confirm that substantial tracts of the land are in confirmed green belt areas?
Where Crown land is in the green belt, and where any "substantial" planning application relates to confirmed green belt land, there is a strong case, not for changing our development control procedures or amending our town and country laws, but for the Secretary of State to use his power under section 35 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, automatically to call in such applications for consideration, which I hope will mean the holding of a local public inquiry. Will my hon. Friend examine the matter sympathetically?
Our development control system does not enable third parties to appeal against planning permissions. An aggrieved applicant can appeal against a planning refusal. If third parties were given the right to appeal against a planning permission, the entire system would probably grind to a halt. On substantial applications involving public open spaces or green belt areas, third parties can have the opportunity to make representations by the Minister adopting section 35 of the Town and Country Planning Act and calling in the applications.
In welcoming the Bill, I agree that appropriate authorities should be allowed to seek planning permissions and to appeal against planning refusals. However, should not there be a quid pro quo to the Bill? Surely it is reasonable that appropriate authorities, which I have defined loosely as Government Departments and statutory undertakers and planning authorities, should be obliged, as are other bodies, to submit planning applications on any other land. Such an important subject might be outside the Bill's long title, but will my hon. Friend examine the matter, because we are dealing with a crucial planning issue?
Although the Bill is narrowly drawn, it raises wider and more fundamental planning issues, and I accept that such matters are for consideration in Committee. I accept that the Bill will remove an anomaly. I welcome its purpose and hope that it will be given a Second Reading.

Mr. Gareth Wardell: I am especially anxious about how the Bill will affect small private mines in west Glamorgan. A press release issued by the Department of the Environment on 12 May 1983 stated that planning permission cannot normally be obtained for surplus Crown land in advance of its disposal. The statement—which is one of the reasons why the Government have introduced the Bill—contrasts sharply with current practice.
An example of the problem is that the Forestry Commission insists that before it disposes of an interest in land a developer must have planning permission from a local authority. Such a practice is contrary to section 266 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971. In the light of that anomaly and the way in which the Bill seeks to correct the position, will the Minister consider three points?
First, will he examine clause 1(8), because it does not deal with the problem of planning permissions or consents that were void ab initio? I seek an assurance from the Minister that the subsection includes purported permission or consent. For areas in which there are many small private mines, such as in west Glamorgan, it is vital that the Bill validates planning permission that has been granted. If not, it will destabilise the developers who have already opened up mines and they will face the future with fear and trepidation.
I believe that the subsection does not establish clearly why previous applications were invalid. The reason is not that the applications related to Crown land, but that they were rendered invalid because the developers had not acquired a prior interest in the land before submitting the application. I hope that the Bill will rectify the position.
Secondly, will the Minister re-examine clause 2, because I am not happy with the scope of the special enforcement notice? For a local planning authority to require the consent of the Crown agencies before the special enforcement notice can be issued is an unnecessary constraint.
Thirdly, clause 4 deals with land that has ceased to be used by the Crown for the purpose specified in the agreement. I seek an assurance from the Minister that a material change of use includes all mineral development as provided in the Town and Country Planning (Minerals) Regulations 1971 and building and other engineering operations.
If the Minister will do as I request, tremendous improvements will be made in the Bill and it will not cause the problems which the west Glamorgan planning authority will otherwise face.

Dr. Ian Twin: I broadly welcome the Bill, as, I am sure, do most hon. Members. It is a matter of regret to hon. Members on both sides of the House that it has taken 20 years for civil servants and those of us who have been involved in planning and education for at least half that time to discover that there is a problem. The Bill deals neatly with a nice point of planning law which has been a serious embarrassment to many people.
The Bill will make honest partners of procedures that have not always been the best, but have had to be followed because of the nature of Crown land. I agree with those who say that it is time for the Government— not, of course, in this Bill—to subject Crown land to the full rigours of planning legislation. There is no good reason why that should not be so.
Much of the land with which the Bill deals is held by health authorities. By the nature of developments in the NHS over the years, much of that land has been developed extensively and is on the edge of towns. Some of it is open space and it extends well beyond green belts into precious countryside in areas of outstanding natural beauty.
As a result of the Bill, a number of developments may occur, and it is important that there be the fullest possible public debate before a development is allowed to go ahead. With that proviso, I welcome the Bill's objectives.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The Bill first saw the light of day on Friday and some of us were worried that we had not had an earlier opportunity to consider it. I understand that it is a convention of the House that two weekends are allowed between the publication of a Bill and its Second Reading, even when a measure is a rush job.
The Bill came upon us quickly and my hon. Friends share the anxiety about how the previous position was allowed to continue for so long. After all, there are people in the Department of the Environment whose job it is to monitor legislation day by day.
Will the Under-Secretary tell us how many applications, in respect of what acreage of land, will be affected by the Bill? The Sunday Times alerted us in the summer to the applications that brought the issue to light and I know from my own investigations that some people are extremely annoyed at having gone to great expense to take part in planning inquiries which lasted weeks, or even months, only to be told that the inquiries were a non-event.
The problems continued even up to last week. A joint development on a Crown estate just off Victoria street, along the road from here, was the subject of a public inquiry which has only just finished. The Under-Secretary has a duty to tell us how many developments which the Department has allowed to proceed illegally are to be put right by this unusual piece of retrospective legislation.
If we are given even only the most spectacular examples, we can at least ensure that nothing has been done that ought to be looked at again. There have been inquiries into some controversial developments, such as the drilling by Shell in the New Forest. We are to give the imprimatur of legality to such applications and we ought to know the implications of that.
The Under-Secretary mentioned specific sites about which anxiety had been expressed to him. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) was notified by the Minister that he would mention Crofton hospital, although my hon. Friend was informed only minutes after the debate had begun.
The land that we are most worried about is that belonging to health authorities. As the Minister has been honest enough to admit, one of the principal consequences of the Bill will be that regional health authorities will be able to obtain planning permission for land which they own, prior to its sale, and, if they are so minded, to realise large sums for assets presently owned by the NHS.
Events at Crofton hospital reflect our anxiety about whether there will be any guarantee that land used for public purposes will be protected once the legislation goes through. Crofton hospital, which is now a day care centre for the elderly, has been used for recreational purposes since 1922. It has been a play area for children and tennis courts have been provided for local people.
There are many other such sites, either currently used for hospital purposes or originally intended for that use, which are being used for more general purposes and could be sold with a much increased value.
The Minister must tell us what procedures will be adopted for the sale of such land. No procedures are spelt out in the Bill. Under the guise of a short piece of planning legislation, the Bill deals substantially with NHS land. Will the Minister undertake to ensure that there will be public consultation when land owned by a health authority is to be sold?
Regional health authorities may comply with Government directives to realise assets by selling land that cannot be used because of NHS cuts that force closures. There is an example in my constituency. St. Olave's hospital in Rotherhithe was closed by a vote of 10–9, with the casting vote being given by a chairman who was appointed by the Secretary of State. The decision took effect at the beginning of this month and the nurses' home is no longer used. Land such as that is lying idle, not because there is no NHS use for it, but because the Government are not providing the money for that use.
It is important that the public be allowed to participate in the debate about the future use of such land. Otherwise, there will be a straight forward realisation of assets by regional health authorities. They will seek to do the best that they can to compensate for the cuts in Government funding and will sell land to the highest bidder, for whatever purpose he wishes to use it, having first acquired planning permission for the most commercially viable development, whether that be office blocks, housing, road building or whatever.
Everybody is anxious about the NHS and we need to know that public land used for the NHS for decades or more will not be sold unless the public have a say in where it goes. The Minister has an obligation to make it clear to the House that the Government will not be content with a small piece of legislation with wide implications, but will make provision, perhaps by an amendment or a new clause, in Committee for there to be a traditional public planning consultation procedure before any such sales are realised.

Mr. David Alton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the question of Crofton hospital. Before he leaves this important subject, will he accept that the regional health authorities are placed in an invidious position when they are told to balance their books and they can do so only by selling land that is a much prized community asset? It is sharp practice—it could be regarded as downright criminal—that land that is used for allotments, tennis courts and other recreational facilities has to be sold off for speculative purposes. That practice is very undesirable.

Mr. Hughes: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's additional comments.
Although this is not the responsibility of his Department, I should like the Minister to look at the Health and Social Service Journal published on 1 December 1983. An editorial entitled "Property Developers" refers to the Bill. He will see that there is substantial concern that, unless considerably amended, the Bill will automatically lead to
the NHS losing often irreplacable assets.
Once the land is lost to the public sector, the public sector will not be given the funds to buy back again. Once lost to the public sector, that land will lose its usefulness to the majority of people.
I realise that the Minister may not be able to give me an answer today on the following point: will inquiries currently in progress be covered by the Bill, and will they be retrospectively validated by it? A public inquiry is in progress in the Limehouse basin, at the instigation of the British Waterways Board. There are a substantial number of public inquiries in progress which appear to me to fall within the category of inquiries on publicly owned land — either Crown land or land owned by public authorities. They are expensive inquiries and the people concerned ought to know how they stand, so that they do not continue to incur costs and find later on that their position is not covered by the legislation and they have to start again.
Reference has been made to the provisions in the Bill for the control of development on Crown land. I support the comments of other hon. Members. It is a pity —although although I understand the Government's position—that we have not been given the opportunity to debate the development of Crown land. We could still be given such an opportunity. I hope that the Minister will explain why the anomaly was not spotted in the past.
What is before us is a new Bill. It is not the amendment Bill that would have been a better vehicle for the proposals that we are considering. There will be an opportunity in Committee for the Government to widen the scope of the consideration of Crown land. I hope that the Minister will consider using the Bill as an opportunity for discussing other serious issues connected with the development of Crown land, planning permission for Crown land and public participation in planning. The long title allows for a certain widening of the debate, and such issues should be discussed. There should be an opportunity in this Session to deal with matters of concern to many people.

Mr. Christopher Murphy: I welcome the Bill, which is clearly needed to clarify some apparent anomalies in the town and country planning system. That surplus Crown land scheduled for disposal should be permitted to attract maximum value is evident to all who wish to protect the interests of taxpayers. At the same time, some of the principles underlying the measure are worthy of attention—in particular, those relating to the more general applications of planning and listed building control, as outlined in clause 3.
It is incumbent upon the Government and their supporters to ensure that the words of the 1983 manifesto are kept before us:
In our crowded country, the planning system has to strike a delicate balance. It must provide for the homes and workplaces we need. It must protect the environment in which we live.
That delicate balance is essential to successful town and country planning. It can most satisfactorily be achieved by


concentrating on developing derelict inner city sites and conserving green field sites. I trust that the proposed disposal of surplus Crown land will adhere to that approach.
The manifesto view has been strongly endorsed by those whom we seek to serve. It must therefore be right that clause 3 extends the requirement for planning permission before any development is carried out. Additionally, the provision of listed building control, if wisely applied, should help to safeguard our heritage.
It is also incumbent upon the Government to ensure that the concept of the green belt, which has such wide public backing and to which my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) referred earlier, remains at the forefront of policy making. My constituents would not wish there to be any weakening of that resolve. They would prefer it to be strengthened, lest Greater London replaces our countryside with a concrete belt. The proposed disposal of surplus Crown land must also adhere to that approach.
I have some reservations therefore about the effects of clause 3 and the right of appeal to the Secretary of State against the controls of local planning authorities. However, should this ensure even-handedness and consistency in development or non-development policy, any fears can be banished.
It is a source of regret that Her Majesty's Government have not taken the opportunity, while acting to overcome the difficulties involved in the proposed disposal of Crown land, to emphasise through the Bill an even firmer commitment to the green belt, which, once it has been designated, should stay that way. That is another factor involved in achieving the delicate balance of successful town and country planning. I should like to seek ministerial support for my Green Belt (Preservation From Development) Bill, through which I shall seek to achieve that aim. I live in hope.
However, the Bill is a further recognition of the vital importance of the town and country planning system that has been evident in the approach adopted since 1979 in environment policy. A full understanding of the need to ensure the best return for the taxpayer has also been evident, as the proposals for the disposal of surplus Crown land well illustrate.
Assuming the correct interpretation of clause 3 and the general applications of planning and listed building control, the measures should further enhance the Government's reputation in these fundamental matters.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: I should always welcome the acquisition by the state of land the value of which has been enhanced simply because planning permission has been granted. For far too long the turning of virgin land into development land has often meant that someone earns a gratuitous fortune. The Bill will ensure that the fortune falls to the Crown and the Government Department if there is development of Crown land.
However, there are more factors to be considered than development planning. The Crown has always to a large extent been exempt. The Crown holds a large amount of land and that land has always been exempt from the general provisions of the town and country planning legislation. That has meant that the Crown, with its vast estates, has been able to use any land for any purpose.

Very often, the use of land in certain areas has not been in keeping with the wishes of the inhabitants. Anything that tightens the procedures and enables local authorities to have a say in the use and development of the land is welcome.
The Bill does not, however, go far enough. Will the Minister study carefully the wording of clause 4 when the Bill is further considered? I can give an example which takes us away from those cited about local health authorities. There is a large mental hospital in my constituency which currently occupies two sites. The Minister probably knows the hospital about which I am talking. It is thought that the hospital will be reduced to one site, and that will release certain land. If the hospital were disposed of, it is right that its enhanced value should flow back to the area health authority, but that is not the only means of disposal. It has been said that if the Government can sell something they do, and that if they can privatise it they do. Crown properties are steadily getting into the hands of the public.
There are considerable problems. If we leave aside health authorities and consider, hypothetically, the Ministry of Defence, we know that it has various engineering workshops and other properties scattered across the country. Some of those properties are in areas of natural beauty where local planning authorities would not want engineering works. Under present legislation, if the Ministry of Defence were to dispose of an engineering workshop, it would be disposed of as such. The local authority would have little or no say in what happened to it in the future. Its existing Crown use could be continued. That causes me some anxiety. If we are to have good planning, it should extend to all land. That is the first of my two points which I hope the Minister will bear in mind when considering the Bill's effects.
The local authority should have some say in the future use of Crown land which is disposed of, when its use is contrary to the general structure plan of the area. I see that the Minister nods in agreement. I am worried about engineering works in areas of natural scenic beauty and various other properties belonging to the Ministry of Defence or other Government Departments.
My second great worry is about the wording of clause 4. The House will have noticed that line 2 of clause 4 contains the word "may". That is a weak word. The clause provides that a local planning authority
may agree with the appropriate authority that subsection (2) below shall apply to such use of land by the Crown as is specified in the agreement, being a use resulting from a material change made or proposed to be made by the Crown in the use of the land.
The clause would read far better if the word "shall" replaced the word "may", because it would remove the element of, "shall we or shall we not?" It would make the provision in clause 4 mandatory. It would provide that where there was to be a change of existing use the local planning authority "shall" agree. The local authority would then have control over a change of use.
Planning authorities should have some say in the use of land in planning areas. Clause 4 should provide that wherever the Crown seeks a change of use for the land, even when it intends to use the land itself or there is to be use by a licensee, a lessee or some other third party brought in to perform a particular function, the local


planning authority should be brought into the matter. That would advance us some way towards unified planning control of land usage.
For the reasons stated by many other right hon. and hon. Members, I welcome in part the further extension of planning control in the Bill. I welcome the fact that the benefit will flow to the state and not to the individual. At the same time, however, my anxieties remain about the use of buildings by the Crown contrary to the structure plan. The Bill would give the House an opportunity to rectify that matter. I look forward to the Minister, perhaps in Committee, conceding that clause 4 needs tightening if the effect that he seeks is to be fully achieved.

Mr. Robert Key: Technicality will inevitably arise during discussion of a Bill such as this. I am sure that the hon. Member for St. Helen's, South (Mr. Bermingham) will not take it amiss when I say that it is just as well that all legislators are not lawyers and that there are some ordinary mortals among us.
I should like to address myself to what the Bill means to our constituents and communities. It is not a sudden decision to encourage health authorities to manage their estates properly, and sell surplus land for the benefit of the community. It is not a new process that has happened in the past six months or so. The error which has been unwittingly perpetrated by successive Governments has been with us for a long time. Most of us probably had our attention drawn to the issue first by a headline in The Times on 31 October 1983 which said:
Sales of NHS land hit by legal ruling.
That progressed through the Daily Telegraph on 2 November to
Crown Land sale rule 'benefits speculators'.
and then to The Sunday Times on 6 December where the headline stated:
Red faces on Crown land building slip-up.
The facts need to be studied carefully because they affect our constituencies. I shall give, if I may, a concrete rather than hypothetical example to illustrate the implications of the Bill for some of our communities, mine in particular.
On the edge of the city of Salisbury was an old hospital which was used primarily during the war but whose use dragged on. It was called Harnwood hospital. It was closed on 22 November 1980. In January 1981 there was a meeting of the regional health authority, the district health authority, the district valuer and others. They anticipated that planning approval would be given by June 1981 and that sale by tender would be finalised by September 1981. The district valuer stipulated that, assuming the site was sold for residential development, he would impose a minimum number of housing units below which he would withhold consent to sale. That was always, and remains, above the maximum number of units acceptable to the planning authority. There was an immediate dilemma. Plans were submitted to the authority and were rejected. The health authority appealed. The appeal was heard in October 1982—already two years since the hospital's closure.
While the appeal was pending, the district health authority submitted an amended planning application, seeking permission for fewer housing units. That application was rejected by the inspector in January 1983.

He declined to give an opinion on the amended application. Therefore, the district health authority sought counsel's opinion and, on the basis of what, I believe, is the Wheatcroft case, appealed to the High Court as to the inspector's competence to make recommendations on the revised application.
The DHA lost the case in July 1983. The High Court ruled that the revised application was deemed to be a new application, not an amendment. Immediately the district health authority submitted an open planning application for a variable number of dwelling units. They clearly felt forced to gamble on the district valuer's minimum number of units in a desperate attempt to unfreeze the capital assets that they so badly needed. The application was again refused by the district planning authority.
On 12 October 1983 the district health authority became aware of the implications of circular 49/63 and all progress was immediately halted. We were back to square one, as has happened in so many cases cited in the House.
For much of this we have to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) who I know has been out of the Chamber at another meeting. I am glad he has now returned because it was he who disclosed the issue and encouraged the passage of the Bill in the first place.
As to the lessons our communities have learnt from this, first, the planning authority sees itself as a guardian of the community in preventing open development. The health authority also sees itself as a guardian of the community. The effect on my community over three years is that the community is substantially worse off even without the change in the Bill.
It seems manifestly absurd that the DHA could not and still cannot disclose the district valuer's conditions of sale and that the district planning authority refuses to negotiate upwards on environmental grounds. There will continue to be a total deadlock, to the detriment of the people of Salisbury, between these two authorities each of which is dedicated to the betterment of the community. I urge them to reach an agreement quickly, and I shall do anything I can to help.
Here is an example of what has happened over a three-year period in one small health authority. It cost that health authority approximately £10,000 in legal and other fees. The health authority had to spend a fortune in fighting vandals on the site over the three-year period. The district planning officer had to put an order on the district health administrator in person requiring him to make the site safe against trespassers. This cost the DHA £7,000 in demolition costs. The DHA then had to obtain from the planners a written declaration that the demolition required to comply with the planners' order would not prejudice future planning applications because of the de facto change of use back to undeveloped ground.
Here was a case of an anticipated capital site value of almost £500,000. Private developers would have been going berserk at the interest charges involved. The health authority in contrast has been forced to close down Tatum ward in the general infirmary, a front line surgical and specialist ward, to save a comparatively small sum of money.
The Bill seeks to amend the law to enable health authorities to maximise their resources for the benefit of the community. In that spirit I support the Bill wholeheartedly.

Mr. Robert Adley: First, I apologise to the House for not being present to hear the opening speech. Unfortunately, I was involved in a commitment elsewhere in the building, which was made before I knew the date of today's business. However, I wish to participate in the debate.
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) for the first time in a debate. It would have been immodest of me to invite him to read in full the reports in The Times and the Daily Telegraph to which he referred. However, he thereafter saved me the embarrassment of having to do so by mentioning my small part in all this.
My hon. Friend and I share a regional health authority, but have different district health authorities. Mr. Robin Hardie, the administrator of the East Dorset health authority, drew my attention in the summer to the problems that the East Dorset health authority was having over the disposal of a property called Capesthorne in Mudeford in my constituency. Mr. Hardie asked me to make every effort to get the law changed as quickly as possible.
I wish to thank the Government for acting so speedily and to congratulate them on having given this small but important Bill such priority. The Bill is undoubtedly in the public interest. I also thank the Opposition, who presumably have ensured that the Bill, which they, too, recognise is in the public interest, will be given a speedy passage.
I have one question only to ask my hon. Friend, although he may already have dealt with it. How could the House. with all its accumulated wisdom, pass an Act of Parliament in 1971 and wait until 1983 before the Law Officers of the Crown advised that everything that had been done in the past 12 years was probably illegal? I do not know how that can have occurred. I imagine it is pointless asking my hon. Friend to ensure that it does not happen again. I think this has serious implications. I do not question the wisdom of the advice. I ask only why the advice given in 1983 was not made available to the Government of the day in 1971 when the legislation was drafted. Twelve years is a long time. One wonders what has been done in the intervening years not just by the health authorities but by, for example, the Department of Transport in developments relating to motorways. Other examples, if they were sought to be uncovered, presumably would be legion. It is probably better not to look too carefully into them.
I am grateful to the Government for having introduced the Bill. One can only hope that such an event does not recur.

Mr. Macfarlane: I am grateful for the constructive and helpful debate that we have had. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) will forgive me if I do not follow him too closely down the historical path of appreciation of the way in which the legislation went in yesteryear. I can speak only for what has happened since 1974. We must make certain that we get it right this time. That point was made by the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark).
I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South, (Mr. Ancram), representing the Scottish Office on

the Government Front Bench, will have found the debate helpful and constructive in view of our joint and dual interest.
I hope that hon. Members will forgive me if I do not respond in close detail to every point that has been made. I undertake to consider all the issues that have been raised.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) was a little late in coming into the debate, no doubt for good reasons. I touched on a number of the points that he raised and if he reads Hansard he will find that I covered the points, I hope more than effectively.
There are many points with which I wish to deal at the outset. First, why is the Bill needed? There is clearly a degree of unanimity among Opposition Members, and this was shown by the hon. Members for Gower (Mr. Wardell), for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) and for South Shields. The Government want to ensure that a proper price is obtained on the sale of Crown land. The valuation advice which the Department of Health and Social Security has received is that an informal opinion that the planning authority will allow the land to be developed in a certain way after it has been sold is good enough.
There is a second reason for the urgency with which the Bill has been introduced. It relates to the High Court judgment given only last month to the effect that the circular 49/63 procedure is invalid in so far as it provides for the Secretary of State to consider disputes over the planning authority's opinion.
The hon. Member for South Shields referred to this and castigated the Government for the length of time that they have taken and for having got it wrong. Until last month's case, the technical illegality had not been contested. That technical illegality is relative to one aspect of the procedure only, and that is the Secretary of State's opinion. As soon as the issue was raised the Bill was introduced to put matters right, which we wish to do as quickly as possible.
The hon. Member for St. Helens, South and several of my hon. Friends raised a number of points which I wish to examine more closely. For example, my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) asked about trees under clause 3(3). I congratulate my hon. Friend on his remarks. He has a wide knowledge of planning matters and I undertake to look at that question.
The hon. Member for South Shields referred to the article in The Sunday Times last weekend, which a number of hon. Members have discussed at various stages and about which they have written to me. As is commonly the case, while there is just enough truth in the article to identify the problem, there is also sufficient omission and inaccuracy to ensure that it generates more heat than light. Hundreds of developments carried out on Crown land over the last 12 years have not been technically illegal, as stated, but I acknowledge that there have been a few. Most surplus land has been sold under the circular 49/63 procedure, which is not referred to in that article. Under that procedure, only an informal planning opinion is obtained while the land remains Crown land, and a formal planning application is not normally made until the sale has been completed.
Furthermore, I do not accept that thousands of pounds, as the article said, have been wasted on public inquiries that should never have taken place. I think that I echo the sentiments of all hon. Members when I say that a public inquiry enables the public to be involved in the


examination of the planning merits of a development. Inquiries can also be held under the circular 49/63 procedure. Indeed, that was proposed in the Fazakerley hospital site in Liverpool, the case to which I referred earlier. Some unnecessary inquiries may have been held because of this legal technicality, but I do not for a moment believe that the time spent on such inquiries has been totally wasted.
The question of enforcement notices was raised by a number of hon. Members, who argued that a planning authority should be able to serve a special enforcement notice under clause 2 without the consent of the Crown. However, there will be cases where the Government Department or Crown authority considers that there are good operational reasons for allowing the development to continue which outweigh the environmental reasons for taking action against it.
In those circumstances, we consider that it would be wrong to allow enforcement action to go ahead, particularly in view of the limited rights of appeal that are available against a special enforcement notice. It should be noted that section 266 of the 1971 Act, and its Scottish equivalent, already provide that an ordinary enforcement notice cannot be served on a person with an interest in Crown land without the consent of the appropriate authority.
The complexity of the enforcement provisions was mentioned by several of my hon. Friends. If the development is not on Crown land or is not carried out by a trespasser, there is no problem, because normal enforcement procedures apply, and I hope that that is understood by the hon. Member for South Shields, who also referred to the need for further planning legislation —he mentioned hazardous waste—and I assure him that I share his concern. Such matters are always up for consideration by Ministers in connection with the need for further planning legislation when the opportunity arises.
As for the availability of staff and the constraints and difficulties which the passage of the Bill will create to the Department, we are satisfied that, despite staff cuts—they have occurred everywhere since 1979—the number of staff employed on planning duties is sufficient and appropriate.
Hon. Members raised many points in connection with the Bill and we shall want to consider them. Many provisions in the measure are vitally important. For example, the calling-in procedure was dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet. The policy followed by successive Governments is that planning applications should be taken out of the hands of local planning authorities only if regional or national issues are involved and that local authorities should, by and large, be left to resolve local disputes. The hon. Gentleman referred, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Murphy), to the green belt, and my hon. Friend reminded us of the 1983 manifesto commitment. Normal green belt legislation will always apply. However, these are important issues that we shall have to consider further.
The hon. Member for Gower referred to clause 1(8) and the hon. Members for St. Helens, South, and for South Shields referred to the same point. We do not see any difficulty with that provision, but I undertake to look at the matter again because I want to satisfy myself about it, too.

I assure the hon. Member for Gower that he is not the only person to have suffered from the speed of introduction of the measure. It is not a cast-iron rule of the House; it is normally a formality to have two weekends for consideration. It is important that we should get on with this legislation and I therefore undertake to consider every point that has been raised, because we regard them all as important.
I do not believe that there is any problem over mineral workings, but we shall look into the matter, because it touches on the wider aspects of mineral developments, drilling bore holes and so on. A number of hon. Members have expressed concern — and have written to the Department — about the relevance of the Bill to the current New Forest oil case, and the hon. Member for South Shields referred to that. While it will not directly affect it, clause 3—this answers the question posed by the hon. Member for St. Helens — will prevent the recurrence of difficulties similar to those that have arisen in the case of the application for planning permission by Shell U.K. Ltd. to drill an exploratory bore hole to look for oil in the New Forest.
Hon. Members may be aware that that application was called in for determination by my right hon. Friend and that a lengthy public inquiry was held in the first half of 1982. However, subsequent to the receipt of the inspector's report of the inquiry, it has been established that the application was made in respect of Crown land in which there is no apparent non-Crown interest. The present effect of section 266(1)(b) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 is to preclude any grant of planning permission, so that it is open neither to the Crown nor to anyone else to apply for planning permission in such circumstances. The parties to the inquiry were informed of that last month, but if they so request, my right hon. Friend is prepared to give an informal indication of the decision that he would have issued had he the jurisdiction so to do.

Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: The planning inquiry in the New Forest has been a matter of public concern for two years, since the inquiry completed its work. The people there cannot understand how the ruling that the Minister gave was not the same ruling that should have been given before the inquiry started its work. Can my hon. Friend clear that up?

Mr. Macfarlane: I hope that what I have said sets the historical record straight. It points to the legal technicalities that we have had to acknowledge in recent months. I can understand the exasperation that my hon. Friend feels, but he is aware of the correspondence that we have exchanged on the subject in recent months, and the issue was referred to in The Sunday Times article. I hope that what I have said puts the record straight and indicates how important it is to have this legislation.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) asked how many cases there were. We do not believe that there are many because most appeals were under circular 49/63. He went on to ask whether Crown land would be protected from development. That is a matter for the Department or authority owning the land. I could not speak for the Secretary of State for Social Services, but if a planning application is made, it can be refused if the local planning authority disagrees with the proposal, and the normal appeal procedures then apply.


Indeed, the Crofton case, to which he referred — I corresponded with the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) about it because I intended to mention it in the debate—is a classic example, and a public inquiry was held. The Bill will cover permissions granted before the measure comes into force.
The hon. Member for St. Helens, South asked whether circular 7/77 provided for consultation. The answer is that it does provide for consultation with the local planning authority as to proposals for development by Government authorities. Where a disagreement arises, the matter is referred to the Secretary of State and an inquiry can be held.
As for the point raised by the hon. Member for St. Helens, South about clause 4, it would be odd to compel the Crown to enter into agreements. However, that—like other points that have been raised in the debate—we shall have to consider further. Many of my hon. Friends have raised points of constituency interest, including anxieties about all sorts of erosions of Crown land and other difficulties that can occur.
The Bill is on the right lines. We shall want to examine it closely during its remaining stages and I am grateful for the assistance that hon. Members have given. It has been argued that the Bill should have gone further and brought all development on Crown land under total planning control. When a similar point was raised during the passage of the Town and Country Planning Act 1947, the then Labour Government in their infinite wisdom argued that co-ordination between the development of properties owned by Government Departments and the plans of local planning authorities could be achieved satisfactorily by administrative methods. I agree with that.
We believe that the arrangements by which the Government Departments consult local planning authorities about their proposals for development, and which are set out in circular 7/77, work well in practice; that piece of legislation passed by the immediate post-war Labour Government has certainly stood the test of time. However, as was pointed out in 1947, that proposal would raise an important constitutional issue affecting the position of the Crown over a wide field. In 1947 a decision was taken that the Crown itself should not be bound by planning legislation. The arguments have not changed and I can see no reason for that issue to be reopened.
I commend the Bill to the House. I believe it will achieve much of what most hon. Members in all parts of the House want. I hope we can make progress. I am grateful for the constructive support of Opposition Members. I shall consider all the points made by every Member who has participated and I shall let them have replies as quickly as possible.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House. —[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

Committee tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — Fisheries

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Michael Jopling): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 7021/83, 8076/83, and 8076/63 Amendment 1 on 1983 total allowable catches, quotas and the conditions under which they may be taken, 7022/83, 7955/83 on technical conservation measures, 7973/83, 8126/83 on quota allocations for Norway, 10158/83 on 1984 fish guide prices, 10568/83 amending the provisional quota arrangements in respect of North Sea herring as well as the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food's unnumbered explanatory memorandum of 22nd November 1983 on fixing the total allowable catch and quotas for the eastern saithe stock for 1983 and of the agreement reached in the Council of Ministers on 3rd and 4th October on technical conservation and structural measures and Norway quotas and on 15th November on eastern saithe and the provisional herring quotas; and urges Her Majesty's Government to secure such improvements to the remaining proposals as may be necessary to meet the needs of the United Kingdom fishing industry.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): I should inform the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the leader of the Liberal party.

Mr. Jopling: It is now 10 months since my right hon. Friend and predecessor secured the approval of the House to the agreement reached on a revised common fisheries policy on 25 January. I welcome today's debate as providing the first suitable opportunity for the House to review in detail the developments which have taken place on the fisheries front since then as well as to consider the proposals recommended for the House's consideration by the Select Committee on European Legislation, to which we are, as ever, very grateful.
The Select Committee's recommendations were made immediately before the summer recess and in some cases thereafter. I am pleased it has proved possible for this debate to be held before the first meeting of the Council of Fisheries Ministers to take place since the House returned after the summer recess. This will be on. 14 December, next Wednesday. As I have already reported to the House, a number of the proposals have been adopted by the Council in the meantime.
I shall deal first with the 1983 total allowable catches and quotas. Throughout my speech I shall refer to the total allowable catches as TACs, the jargon of the fishing industry with which I think the House is becoming familiar.
The motion covers documents dealing with a variety of fisheries topics covering all aspects of the subject from the fisherman to the consumer. I should like to begin with the three documents — 7021/83, 8076/83 and 8076/83, amendment 1, on 1983 TACs and quotas for stocks within the waters of member states, since I expect the fixing of 1983 TACs and quotas to be a major item on the agenda for the Council on 14 December.
As the House knows, this is a subject which has been discussed by the Council on various occasions, but on which decisions have been delayed largely because of the as yet unresolved question of North sea herring. For many of the stocks the proposals for TACs raise no difficulty from the United Kingdom point of view and the quotas proposed faithfully reflect the percentage shares for each member state agreed in January of this year.
This is not to say, however, that the whole package of proposals is entirely satisfactory for us as it stands in these


documents. It is not. There are a number of stocks, including some smaller ones of great importance to certain local fishing communities, on which we have been arguing for increases in the TACs and quotas over the level proposed by the Commission. I am pleased to report to the House that an outline of a possible compromise package on TACs and quotas has emerged in the negotiations which, if adopted, would meet the needs of our fishermen.
Some hon. Members may wonder what would now be the relevance of reaching agreement on 1983 TACs and quotas at all, since it is clear this could have little practical significance on fishing for the remainder of the year and ideally we should now be turning to the question of quotas for 1984. I have urged the Commission frequently to come forward as early as possible with proposals for 1984.
The main scientific recommendations for 1984 are now available and the Commission has begun discussions with Norway on the level of TACs for the joint stocks in the North sea. We can therefore hope to see Commission proposals for at least the main body of stocks later this month.
However, even if the North sea herring problem can be resolved on 14 December, it would be unrealistic to expect an immediate agreement on 1984 TACs and quotas, since member states, including the United Kingdom, will want to examine the Commission's proposals. We therefore need some legal basis on which fishing can continue after 31 December.
If 1983 quotas could be agreed by the Council in December—next week—these could form the basis for a roll-over provision for 1984 similar to that currently operating, but with the clear advantage of being more up to date from a conservation point of view.
North sea herring is, of course, in a different category from other stocks and requires our special attention this evening. This fishery was closed in 1978 as a result of previous over-fishing and it has only been possible to reopen it this year. The Commission's proposal for 1983 in document No. 8076/83 was explicitly put forward as an ad hoc allocation without prejudice to the future. However, other member states have, perhaps understandably, not been content to settle on an ad hoc basis and discussions at the Council's two meetings in October have been about a formula for allocating herring quotas, not just for the 1983 level of TAC, but for foreseeable future levels of the stock.
The negotiations have been very difficult. The five other member states concerned have all been determined, as I am, to secure a satisfactory share of this important stock for their fishermen at the various possible levels of TAC. The sum total of the various percentage shares demanded by various states has on occasion been well in excess of 100 per cent., but the gap has been narrowing and, although it will not be easy, I am confident that it will be possible in the end to reach a formula with which all concerned can live.
It would not be appropriate—and the House would not expect me to do so—for me to attempt to define in detail my negotiating position or to identify a so-called "bottom line", but I have consulted the industry closely at every stage in the negotiations and will continue to do so.

Mr. A. J. Beith: I agree that the Minister cannot define his final position, but will he

bear in mind that one group of fishermen who are entitled to some part in the herring fishery are those who use the Longstone fishery from nearby areas such as Seahouses and Amble and who have been excluded from that fishery effectively because of the time during which it has been open? A group of fishermen who voluntarily accepted limitation even before there was a statutory limitation have not had access to the fishery which they have looked after in the past.

Mr. Jopling: I understand that there are problems, caused partly by the sprat box on that part of the Northumberland coast. As the hon. Gentleman will know, however, herring fishing is now taking place in the northern and central parts of the North sea. I shall return to that in a moment.
Pending a definitive settlement, herring fishing in the North sea has been governed, first, by the interim quotas adopted earlier in the summer and then by the rolled-over 1982 quotas for the southern part of the North sea which opened on 1 October.
Document No. 10568/83 deals with provisional arrangements in respect of North sea herring for the period up to the next Fisheries Council meeting. As a consequence of the adoption of this proposal, as a matter of urgency—here I take up the hon. Gentleman's point —on 15 November our fishermen were able to resume fishing once more in the northern and central North sea as well as in the southern North sea. The arrangement ensures a more rational exploitation of the stocks concerned, in line with scientific evidence, but without in any way prejudicing the outcome of the talks on long-term quotas. This arrangement has brought a welcome extra measure of flexibility for the pelagic sector of our industry, as did the recent Council decision adopted at our request to defer the closure of the west of Scotland mackerel fishery north of 58 deg. N from 1 November to 1 December 1983. I know that that was much welcomed by our industry.
Two further quota documents deal with allocations for Norway under the Community's reciprocal fishing agreement with Norway, which is of considerable importance to our white fish sector. Document No. 8126/83, concerning further interim fishing for North sea herring by Norwegian vessels, was one of the subjects of my statement to the House on 28 July reporting the outcome of the Council of Fisheries Ministers meeting on 25 and 26 July. Document No. 7973/83 embodies the full-year quotas agreed for Norway in 1983, the basis of which I also explained on 28 July. We agreed to this proposal at the Council on 4 October in the interests of maintaining good fisheries relations with Norway and only after the Council had agreed that the Commission should, in its future negotiations with Norway, seek to proceed on the basis of the relative ownership shares of North sea herring which we and the rest of the Community have hitherto considered appropriate.
The final quota item is described in our unnumbered memorandum of 22 November and deals with the saithe stock found in the eastern waters of the member states. This proposal was also adopted recently as a matter of urgency, setting the 1983 total allowable catches and quotas for this particular stock separately from the rest of the 1983 proposals at a level higher than for 1982. We have already fished slightly in excess of the level even of


our 1983 quota, but the decision is advantageous to the United Kingdom as it reduces the extent of our over-quota fishing.
Documents Nos. 7022/83 and 7955/83 relate to technical conservation measures. This aspect of fisheries management becomes increasingly significant as pressure on stocks increases and the establishment of a framework of measures on a Community basis, applying to all member states' fishermen, is an important achievement of the CFP. It is therefore a matter of some satisfaction that the Council was able on 4 October to agree to a regulation amending the existing regulation adopted in January on the basis of the proposals contained in these documents, subject to certain amendments.
In particular, I think that the House will welcome the adoption of improved measures for the protection of the western mackerel stock, which is of considerable importance and value to our own industry. The increase in the size of the previous box in south-western waters and its extension throughout the year should provide greatly improved protection in an area in which the juvenile stock congregate.
The measures will run until 1 January 1987 but will be reviewed in 1986. I am glad to say that there are exemptions for handliners and gillnetters, which will be of benefit to the local small boats, and for those involved in bottom trawling, subject to certain mesh size requirements.
I am aware that there has been some criticism of the box, both from those who think that it is too restrictive and from those who think that it is not restrictive enough. I would just say that the measure is soundly based and will, I am sure, be of lasting benefit to the western mackerel fishery as a whole. We are taking some pains to enforce the new rules as effectively as possible and shall be keeping a careful watch on the results.
The Council also agreed certain changes in minimum mesh sizes in the North sea and in the Irish sea. These increases had been strongly recommended by fisheries scientists as a contribution to the long-term improvement of all the stocks. Some will say that the increases should have been introduced earlier, but I know that the fishermen involved will appreciate the time that they have been given to re-equip their nets, which can be a considerable short-term cost to them.
The Council also set a deadline by which it should consider and decide upon a possible increase in the mesh size for the English channel.
I am delighted also to say that the Community has now applied its collective mind to the important question of the shell fisheries. As a result of the decisions taken on 4 October, the Community conservation regulations for the first time now include general measures setting minimum landing sizes for lobsters, nephrops and some of the crabs, scallops and clams. More work needs to be done in improving the conservation and management of shell fisheries in the Community, but this is an important first step. Outline provisions have been made for other species which can be considered by the experts for later inclusion in the regulations. A further positive development at the Council on 4 October was the agreement on the detailed legislation needed to bring into effect the Community's "structures" policy. I shall tell the House now how that is being followed up.
Since agreement was reached in October we have carried further the programme of discussions with

representatives of the main organisations representing the catching sector of the industry. Those meetings were very important to us in considering the detailed arrangements for implementing the various schemes contained in the structures package so as to enable our industry to use them to the best advantage.
I can now announce the most important of our decisions, although I must ask the House to await the statutory instrument, which we hope to lay before Christmas, for further details. I begin by reminding the House what is in the structures package.
First, there is provision for decommissioning grants. The aim is to reduce capacity in those sections of the fleet where total capacity exceeds our fishing opportunities. That makes sense for those who have been trying to operate vessels which were built for another era when we had access to grounds which are now closed to us. It could also provide help for the owners of vessels which are simply not viable in modern circumstances for any one of several reasons, and whose owners now wish to leave the industry. The benefit to the rest of the fleet will come from there being less pressure on our share of the stock if we have fewer vessels chasing a given amount of fish.
I have two key decisions to announce to the House tonight. First, the grant will be £400 per gross registered tonne. Secondly, the Community will help to fund payments for vessels only down to 12m long. Our industry pressed us to widen the coverage of the scheme, and we have decided to make the grant available to any vessels more than 10m long.
I want to make it clear that nobody is being forced out of the industry. The decision to stay in the fleet, or to apply for a grant and leave it, is for the owner of the vessel to take. It is for nobody else. All that we are doing is easing what will, for many, remain a difficult choice.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Will the Minister explain what obligations will be placed on those vessel owners after receiving the grant? Will people who crew and own the vessels not be allowed to come back into the industry?

Mr. Jopling: The rule is that the boat must leave the industry. However, I must ask the right hon. Gentleman to await the details of the statutory instrument, which we hope to lay before the House before the Christmas recess.
The second main element of the package comprises new grants to assist the industry by providing laying-up grants and support for exploratory voyages and joint ventures. They go together because they are made for vessels with a future, which their owners want to keep in the fleet, but which may need some short-term help.
One important point is that we propose to implement the schemes on the lines laid down in the Community legislation, with one important exception. Our laying-up grant scheme will cover not just the larger and newer vessels covered by the Community scheme, but any vessels over 10m long, irrespective of age. That was a point on which the industry organisations were very keen. I know that they will welcome our decision.

Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Fort Glasgow): Will these exploratory voyages be confined to, say, large stern trawlers, which are at present mainly tied up in our major ports, or will the voyages be undertaken by both the large stern trawlers and the larger purse seiners?

Mr. Jopling: That is a matter which we shall be explaining in more detail when we lay the statutory instrument before the House. I shall just say that we have been asked whether it might be possible to have exploratory voyages to the Falkland Islands. [Interruption.] Subject to the Commission's agreement. It will be possible, in principle, to fund exploratory voyages off the Falkland Islands under the Community scheme. Any vessel owner who is interested in pursuing that possibility should contact us, so that we can discuss it further.

Mr. Beith: I should not wish the hilarity that arose on the official Opposition Front Bench on that point to blind the Minister to the genuine interest in several parts of the House in the fact that the substantial fisheries resources off the Falkland Islands are now being fished by east European countries, not by Britain.

Mr. Jopling: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I ceased years ago to be amazed by what amuses Opposition Front Bench Members. This is an important point, which may cause a few people to consider what I have just announced.
The third piece of the jigsaw, and for many the most important, is the scheme of FEOGA aid for vessel building and modernisation. The same Community scheme also provides for the continuation of grants for fish farming. We have had interim schemes of FEOGA aid for some years, but now we have agreement that the scheme will be open in both 1984 and 1985 at least. Fishermen have welcomed the fact that there will no longer be a need to reopen the scheme every year, with all that that has meant in delays in being able to make applications between the end of one scheme and the beginning of the next. The application form has also been simplified.
It has been clearly established that priority under the Community vessel scheme will go to the replacement or modernisation of vessels more than 12 years old, which was very much our priority. Aid will be available to vessels between 9m and 33m long. The lower limit is an improvement on the 12m originally proposed.
The House should also know that our 25 per cent. grants will continue to be available through the Sea Fish Industry Authority in addition to FEOGA grants. Although we are budgeting for almost £43 million for expenditure in the United Kingdom arising directly from the implementation of the Community structures package, we have allocated a further £45 million during the next three years to the vessel-building grants and loans administered by the Sea Fish Industry Authority.
Together, those provisions represent a major package of support for the fishing industry from public funds. This shows our determination, at a time when Government expenditure must be tightly controlled, to give every possible encouragement to the process of renewal and improvement which is necessary if we are to develop and maintain an efficient fleet capable of effectively exploiting the fishing opportunities which are open to us.
The FEOGA scheme for building and modernisation grants is already open. The new schemes for decommissioning grants, laying-up grants and aids for joint ventures and exploratory voyages will be opened as soon as possible after we have laid the necessary statutory instrument, which we aim to do before Christmas. Making the order will mark a very important stage in the

development of fisheries policy. It represents a key element in the full implementation of the common fisheries policy, and should be welcomed as such. It is even more to be welcomed because it will bring real benefits to our industry.
Document No. 10158/83 contains the Commission's proposals for guide prices in 1984. Guide prices must be determined by the Council every year. They are important because, once settled, they are used to calculate Community, or official, withdrawal prices. Those are the prices which members of fish producer organisations must defend by withdrawing fish from the human consumption market when markets are weak, in which case they receive compensation from FEOGA.
The Commission's proposal is divided into three annexes, the first of which is of the greatest interest because it covers the main species of commercial importance to United Kingdom fishermen, such as cod, plaice, herring and mackerel. For the species in this annex the Commission propose increases ranging from nil per cent. to 6 per cent.
The Government consider that, taking all the relevant factors into account, the Commission produced a set of proposals that were reasonably balanced in broad terms as between the different species and reflected the realities of the Community market. For some species, such as cod and plaice, the gap between withdrawal price levels and average market prices was sufficient to allow us to press for somewhat more substantial increases in the guide prices for next year than the Commission had proposed without risk of creating unreasonable demands on the Community budget.
This view was widely accepted among the other member states and I should advise the House that, following discussion of the Commission's proposals, there is general agreement that the guide price for plaice should be increased by two percentage points more than the Commission first proposed and that cod prices should increase by 6 per cent. rather than 5 per cent. These changes will be welcome to our own fishermen. At the same time, a number of other member states were worried about their markets for whiting and the proposal will, therefore, be amended to show a 5 per cent. increase rather than 6 per cent. as originally proposed.
Subject to the views of the House, we are now anxious to confirm our agreement to the guide price proposals for 1984. This is vital for all fishermen, because, unless agreement is reached at an early enough date in December, it becomes impossible to complete all the remaining stages in time for all the new official withdrawal prices, and other prices derived from the guide prices, to be applied from 1 January, the beginning of the fisheries marketing year.
I commend the Commission's proposals, revised in the ways that I have described, to the House as striking an appropriate balance between the needs of the fishing industry, consumer interests and the need to protect the EC budget from the effects of setting withdrawal prices at too high a level.
As I come to the end of my speech, I refer to the amendment that Mr. Speaker has selected. Although it has not yet been moved, I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you will allow me to comment on it. It covers a variety of points.
On herring quotas, I think tht I have made it clear my intention to continue to negotiate in the fullest consultation with the fishing industry. I have also made it clear that,


while we want to see proposals for 1984 total allowable catches and quotas at the earliest possible date, it would be unrealistic to expect that we could reach immediate agreement on them; some roll-over arrangement will be inevitable. I am aware of the strong feeling in certain sections of the industry about the restrictions on sprat fishing in a number of areas off our coast. These are Community measures based on firm scientific recommendations designed primarily to protect juvenile North sea herring.

Mr. John Home Robertson: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether it is necessary to have a complete ban, winter and summer, on fishing for sprats in the Moray Firth and Firth of Forth? Is he aware that this is causing considerable hardship to a number of fishermen? Would it not be adequate to retain the by-catch regulations, which have been working well in recent years?

Mr. Jopling: I am coming to that.
These measures need to be kept under review, and I note the proposition in the amendment that boats less than 40ft long should be exempted. I am prepared to consider this next year, in the light of the up-to-date scientific advice, but it would be wrong for me to commit myself more firmly than that this evening. I give an undertaking that I shall look at this for next season, but we must consider the strong scientific advice.
On the Community fisheries inspectorate, I have maintained regular pressure on the Commission. At least six inspectors are already in post and I have been assured that the full complement of 13 will be in post by the end of the year. Given the inevitable need for economy in Commission manpower, I should prefer to reserve judgment on the need for an increase in complement until we have seen how the initial numbers get on. I am also continuing to press for the speedy introduction of log books.
If there are points which the industry wishes to take up with me on the minimum mesh size in the North sea and the minimum size of lobsters, I am, of course, happy to discuss these but I should not hold out any hope of going back on the important steps which have been taken in the interests of conservation.
I have dealt at some length with the amendment, and I hope that my words have been helpful to the House. I have hopes that, in the light of my remarks, the right hon. and hon. Members whose names are appended to the amendment will not press the itwhen we come to the end of the debate.
I have, I believe, covered the various items referred to in the motion but before concluding I shall pull the various strands together and put them in the perspective of the common fisheries policy as a whole. We have at various times over the past few months heard prophecies of doom and gloom from one quarter or another. Statements have been made to the effect that the CFP is on the verge of collapse. I hope that it is clear from what I have already said that this is far from the case. The basic framework, including the very important rules on access to fisheries within the 12-mile belt, has been firmly in place since 25 January.
Although the Council has yet to resolve certain very important issues, this has not prevented welcome progress in other areas. Conservation measures are in force and

have been improved. Catch limitations are in operation based on the member states' percentage shares, as established in January. The arrangements for catch reporting and enforcement are being developed and refined. The new Community inspectorate has begun to work. Support to market prices continues, and funds are being made available for the necessary restructuring and modernisation of the fleet.
I therefore remain firmly of the view that the common fisheries policy, for all its teething problems, is a good policy for the Community and for this country. I shall continue, I hope with the support of the House, to negotiate on the various matters that I have mentioned tins evening, as I have done hitherto, with the aim of securing the improvements required to meet the needs of the United Kingdom fishing industry.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I crave the indulgence of the House for beginning with what may be a rare measure of agreement between the two Front Benches. I put on record my congratulations to Willie Flay on his appointment to the Sea Fish Industry Authority. He will be a marvellous successor to Gilbert Buchan. For once, the Government have made a wise choice in an appointment.
Having said that, I move rapidly to demonstrate my disagreement with the Government's efforts to date in handling the common fisheries policy. When it was agreed, 10 months ago, I said that it was not a good agreement for the United Kingdom, and I remain of that opinion. The former Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the present Secretary of State for Energy, said that he accepted the revised common fisheries policy only with the consent of the fishing industry. He carries about with him, almost as a talisman, a letter from the industry thanking him for his services. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that I regarded that letter as a triumph of courtesy over common sense. I know, as does the Minister, that the industry was wearied to the point of exhaustion into acquiescence by the lengthy negotiating process.
In its heart of hearts, the industry knows that this is a bad deal. Acceptance by the then Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food — now the Secretary of State for Energy — had more to do with the need to get some form of agreement before the general election than with the needs of the industry. Whether we like or not, we are, for the moment, stuck with the common fisheries policy and we must get on with it. However, we must do something fast. The months cannot be allowed to slip by as fast as they have been doing as many problems must still be resolved.
The fishing industry's plea is fourfold. There are four questions that must be answered to provide some stability so that it can plan to overcome its problems. The questions are simple. What can it fish? How much can it fish? Where can it fish? When can it fish? The industry has been asking those questions for a long time. It is absurd that they cannot be answered even now. Moreover, even if some total allowable catches are agreed on 14 December, the industry is in no position to know where it stands.
The Opposition believe that it is wrong that the industry should be in such circumstances. Who would have believed that, 10 months later, we should not have TACs on many items? The uncertainties are causing anxiety in


many sections of the industry and in many different geographical areas. Yesterday's edition of The Press and Journal carries an article entitled:
Scots call for protection vessels in fish clash.
We read of skippers from the north-east of Scotland who were fishing for mackerel off the south-west coast of England calling in fishery protection vessels to stop harassment by small Cornish vessels. I do not see any right hon. Member present who represents the Cornish fishermen.

Mr. David Harris.: As a representative of the Cornish fishing industry, I hope to have an opportunity to speak later.

Mr. Hughes: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for identifying himself. I did not want to cast any aspersions on him.
The Cornish fishermen put forward a different point of view. They believe that the Scottish vessels are wreaking all sorts of havoc in what they regard as their fishery just as we regard the north-east of Scotland fishery as Scottish. Problems exist. We know that the Scottish Pelagic Fishermen's Association has asked its president to open discussions in an attempt to resolve the areas of disagreement. I am sorry to hear that, until yesterday, those discussions had not been successful. I hope that reasonable agreement will be achieved.
Fishermen must accept that, from whatever ports they come, they have a stake in the industry. They must try to reach conclusions that are acceptable to everyone. In view of the difficulties facing the fishing industry, I am aware that there will be disagreements from time to time about who fishes where. However, that matter can properly be resolved.

Mr. Barry Henderson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, whatever the broader anxieties might be, in the case to which he has referred, the Scottish fishermen were fishing legally and that the fisheries officers had been aboard their vessels and were satisfied of that? Is it not important that the fishing industry, which is as anxious about conservation as we all are, must stick to the rules?

Mr. Hughes: I do not know where the suggestion that the Scottish fishermen were fishing illegally came from. It certainly did not come from me. Until we achieve a settled future and fishermen know where they stand, such difficulties will occur from time to time.

Mr. Harris: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, as a general principle, fishermen can sometimes fish legally if there is a glaring loophole in a regulation? Does he accept that that sometimes happens?

Mr. Hughes: I accept that that sometimes happens, but I do not believe that the Scottish fishermen to whom I have referred were fishing through a legal loophole. I do not invest fishermen with the sanctity of angels. I come from a fishing family and know only too well how their nomadic spirit sometimes leads them to disregard the rules. I have seen fishermen fishing so close to the beach that I do not know how they manage to stay off the rocks. They are obviously masters at handling their vessels. I am not suggesting that all British fishermen are good guys and that

all the bad guys come from the continent. As I said before, unless we settle the matter such incidents will arise from time to time.
I should like to deal with some of the representations that I have received from the industry in the past few days. It is not satisfied with regard to herring quotas. There have been about six meetings since the summer and there is still no agreement. The industry points out strongly that the latest offer on herring is only 24·2 per cent. of the TAC. It believes that the proportion should be nearer 35 per cent. Apparently, the Government's reply is that we must take into account the low percentage which, historically, we have been able to take. The fishermen respond to that quite fairly that we have historically taken less than we might because the fishery has been dormant. The British have respected the limitation of the fishery while many others have not. The industry believes that it must have a firm commitment. The Scottish Fishermen's Organisation Ltd says:
The recent stop go approach to North Sea herring is most unsatisfactory. Proper marketing arrangements are very difficult to organise if a fishery is opened at only a few days notice as occurred recently in the case of herring.
Nor does it make sense to close areas in which marketable quality of fish can be caught such as in the case of mackerel north of 50 deg. north. Despite the fact that the TAC was nowhere near being taken the existing Regulation would have closed this area. In the current year the closure was postponed for 1 month but this should be made a permanent arrangement.
We therefore have disagreement about the quantity which can be taken and where it might be taken. We understand that scientists now recommend that there should be reductions in the TACs for the main species of white fish. The industry believes that it will not be able to withstand a sudden fall in the size of the TACs. It wants the TACs to be settled by 1 January. It also points out that the 1983 TAC has not yet been agreed. I agree with the industry's suggestion that the entire fleet has been living off its nerves for the past 12 months because it does not know where it stands with regard to TACs.
The Minister said that there were six inspectors in post. According to my information, there are seven. The difference is not significant. The point is that there are six or seven inspectors out of an establishment of 13. The industry believes that 13 is far too small a number and that it should be increased to a minimum of 30. I recall that it was only recently that the six or seven inspectors were appointed. The Minister will agree that there was difficulty in getting the money necessary to pay them. I do not have the details to hand, but I recall that the money was being used for another purpose, and it was only when strong representations were made that the money was produced.
The Minister said that he wants to press on with the establishment of log books and land documents. My information is that they are not likely to be available until the spring. If I can be permitted to talk in a fishing debate about a snail's pace, this snail's pace development from 10 months ago is no use. The Government must move faster.
There is the question of restructuring and decommissioning money, of which I shall say more later. We are glad that it has been agreed. I shall say more about the decommissioning grant later. The Scottish Fishermen's Federation wants a licensing system under which a boat can be licensed from day one. It wants an independent


licensing authority to be established. I understand that the Government are not too keen on that idea, because they are generally opposed to quangos.
What are the Government doing about training? The training functions of the training council have now been handed over to the Sea Fish Industry Authority. Some agreements have been reached for the short-term, but there is great concern about the long-term funding of training. The Government provide money for training in agriculture. Why do they not make sufficient money available to the SFIA? It may be argued that funds are available for training from the European social fund, but I am told that that money will not be available until late next year.
The next issue is connected with restructuring the industry and decommissioning grants. I believe that the Minister should take the lead in dealing with compensation and redundancy payments for fishermen. Far too much money has gone to the owners. I do not object to them having money, except to the extent that it has not gone to the people who go to sea in ships. Working fishermen have had a raw deal. They have suffered more than anyone else. Of course, it is conventional for the Government to say — I know that legally it is true — that redundancy payments are the responsibility of the Department of Employment. Nevertheless, I believe that the Minister has an obligation to people who have devoted their lives to the industry. There should be a joint approach in dealing with the problems.
For as long as I can remember, trawlermen have been employed in various ports by the Fishing Vessel Owners Association, whether in Grimsby, Hull or Aberdeen. The men sign on, perhaps working on different vessels for different owners and companies. Almost everything to do with the port industry was done through the Fishing Vessel Owners Association. Holiday pay, sick pay, and discipline were dealt with through the association. Indeed, the trade unions were involved. The Transport and General Workers Union played a very active part in operating disciplinary procedures. In many cases, pension schemes were also run on a port industry basis. In Aberdeen, the organisation was closed down because it was no longer viable. I do not know how it can be said that there has been no continuity in employment when people have been employed through an umbrella organisation, and therefore they do not qualify for redundancy pay. The Government should do something about that very soon.
What is the Minister's decision on conditions of work for fishermen? He will know that on Friday last week there was a meeting in Europe of the joint committee on social problems in the sea fishing industry. I know that the Transport and General Workers Union—Mel Keenan in particular— has been trying for over 10 years to get proper conditions laid down. The French Government have submitted proposals to the Council of Ministers, and those proposals are supported by everyone except the owners. Certainly the workers' representatives agreed with the proposals. I hope that the Government will fully back them.
Concern has been expressed recently about mackerel being bought at £35 a tonne, processed into fishmeal, and then sold at the farm gate at £350 a tonne. I cannot believe that such a mark-up is justified. I do not expect the Minister to answer me today, but I hope that he will investigate what I believe is a rip-off.
I have just received a submission, which I have not had time to study in detail, from the Federation of North East Scotland Fish Merchants Associations. It is entitled:
A May Day Call to Her Majesty's Government".
The fact that fish merchants have approached the Government for financial aid shows how serious the position is. The merchants say that employment is declining in Aberdeen and elsewhere. In Aberdeen, there have been over 600 redundancies between 1979 and 1982. That may not seem a large number compared with the number of people who are unemployed, but it shows how the industry has declined. The merchants say that they each employ small numbers of people. Indeed, 145 companies employ fewer than 10 people each. They argue that the FEOGA grants that are available under regulation 355/77 are beyond their reach, because projects of less than £25,000 do not qualify.
The recommendations that the merchants make have been well thought out, and they apply to areas other than those from which they come. They suggest that where the industry is suffering from restructuring difficulties, payment of up to £500 per employee should be made to processors, and the money used to develop the business. They believe that money can be made available through section 8 of the Industry Act 1982, which can be used for various purposes, including the restructuring of industries experiencing temporary difficulties. They suggest that the SFIA should be instructed to instigate a grant and loan scheme for processors to develop their plant and machinery. Of course, the SFIA has no money of its own, so the merchants are asking that money should be made available to that body for that purpose. They want an investment scheme, similar to the regional development grants, to be made available to selected industries—for example, fish processors who have experienced devastating problems.
The Government should give serious consideration to those suggestions. I hope that they will make a positive response because, as I have already said, the suggestions apply to other areas apart from the north-east of Scotland.
I come next to the problems that face Hull. l visited Hull 10 days ago. I thought that I knew from my colleagues the serious situation of the fish catching side of the industry, but I confess that I was stunned by the devastation that I encountered in Hull. I do not detract in any way from the advocacy of my hon. Friends. I have been more concerned with the rundown of the Aberdeen trawling fleet, and perhaps was not as receptive as I might have been to the problems of Hull. If so, I apologise.
The facts are well known, but they are worth repeating for the record. When Britain joined the EC, the port of Hull had 69 wet fish trawlers with a gross registered tonnage of 52,134. The freezer fleet numbers 28, with a further 22 ordered or being built. Therefore, during the early days of our membership there were 50 freezers with a GRT of 84,000 tonnes. In other words, the total GRT of Hull trawlers — wet and freezers — was 136,661 tonnes. Today there remain eight freezer ships with a GRT of 10,000.
The excellent Sea Fish Industry Authority analysis of the Hull fishing industry — technical report No. 220 published in August 1983—gives the effect on landings. In 1970, landings in Hull were 197,000 tonnes—top of the table in the United Kingdom by far. By 1981, landings had slumped to 15,000 tonnes, and Hull ranked only 12th in the United Kingdom.
Similarly, Hull's share of United Kingdom fishing employment fell from 1,871, or 11 per cent., to 555, or only 3 per cent., between 1975 and 1981. The overall position has worsened since then, and Hull is now almost totally dependent on fish imports. For example, in 1982, 74 per cent. of all wet fish landings came from Icelandic vessels. Other sources of supply were obtained overland from Yorkshire and Scottish ports, even as far afield as Peterhead. That is a long way to transport fish. The analysis of the Sea Fish Industry Authority goes into greater detail than I am able to do this evening, but I have said enough to demonstrate the crisis facing the industry in Hull. I hope that the Government agree that something should and can be done. Perhaps the hard-faced monetarism—a philosophy that is all pervasive within the Government—leads to the conclusion that nothing can be done.
I welcome the fact that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland is to reply to the debate. I hope that he will be able to reply to my points about Hull.

Mr. Stuart Randall: My hon. Friend said that the companies in Hull were living off their nerves. In the light of the description that he has just given, would it not be better to say that the companies there are living off their bankers?

Mr. Hughes: I think I said that the whole catching industry was living off its nerves. There is no doubt that the position in Hull is extremely serious.
The Hull study suggests, among other things, that two complementary paths can be followed to deal with the problem of landings—first, the development of middle-water vessels, and, secondly, constructive attempts to encourage other vessels to land at the port.
I do not wish to make much comment on that, even in the absence of hon. Members who represent other ports, but I know that Grimsby is also facing problems. The study on Grimsby says that it needs to maintain and sustain its landing capacity. Other hon. Members who represent fishing constituencies will also argue that part of the problem is that fish is not processed in their ports but is transferred either to Hull or to Grimsby. Therefore, encouraging landings of vessels from other ports is not necessarily the way forward.
Grampian regional council — in which Aberdeen, Fraserburgh, Peterhead, Macduff, Whitehills, Buckie and umpteen other fishing ports are situated—is planning to develop the on-landing processing of fish and the added value production for that area. It goes without saying that the more processing that is developed in the Grampian area, the fewer fish will be transferred from Peterhead. Therefore, the most important thing for Hull is the building of a middle-water fleet.
The extent to which that can be done largely depends on the availability of the decommissioning grant, which is now extremely urgent. I welcome the Minister's announcement that he will lay the regulations before Christmas, but I do so with two reservations.
When I took over this portfolio, I was told that the only trouble with it was that there would be no work to do in the House and that my duties would be confined to asking boring questions on statements. This debate has arisen in my first week, and we can expect a statement on the

Fisheries Council next week. I therefore doubt whether we shall have another fisheries debate on the Floor of the House in the near future.
Although the regulations will be published and laid before Christmas, when will the money be available? The Minister may have mentioned that, and I apologise if I did not hear it. However, I have no knowledge of when the money will be available. That is important if we are to back up the people in Hull who are facing difficulties. For reasons of commercial confidentiality — a phrase of which the Minister is fond — I shall not say which companies are facing difficulties.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John MacKay): Allowance will be made for the money in the winter Supplementary Estimates.

Mr. Hughes: I know that the hon. Gentleman is trying to be helpful, but that does not help at all. The money may be in the Estimates, but when will it be available?

Mr. Jopling: It is there.

Mr. Hughes: There is a clear distinction between it being there and it being released. When will the money be available? How quickly will claims be processed?

Sir Patrick Wall: The hon. Gentleman has said much about the problems of Hull and the deep-water fleet. He will appreciate that the real key is that the decommissioning money must be available this year as it is based on the 1982 catching capacity. If I understood correctly, that is exactly what the Minister said would be done.

Mr. Hughes: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I appreciate that the decommissioning will not only apply to Hull. Clearly, those entitled to the money must be told how quickly their claims can be processed as many wish to build other vessels.
I do not entirely agree that £400 per gross registered tonne is very generous. The Minister made the announcement with some flourish, but I understand that the rate of decommissioning grant was prescribed in a Council resolution of 25 January 1983. Yet only now have the regulations come before us. The proposal in January 1983 was that there should be a grant of £400 per gross registered tonne. I am anxious to draw a distinction between money being available and put on the table, or into the pockets of those who go into decline.
I believe that the decommissioning grants should be used to replace some of the lost fishing effort. The money will have no useful effect if it is put into another commercial venture that is not connectd with fishing. I do not know what the regulations will contain and I do not know whether they will include compelling measures to ensure that the money is ploughed back into the industry. However, if it proves possible, I hope that it will be done. There is a will and a desire to rechannel the money into the industry, but it will never replace the fishing effort or the jobs.
Even if new vessels are built for some of the ports, there may be problems about where they are to fish. If a fishing effort is developed in Hull, which has been dormant, there may be problems. However, the problems can be resolved if we implement a properly organised quota system.
The Hull study states that the most important need of all is a coherent long-term development strategy for the entire United Kingdom. Many hon. Members have heard


me advocate from the Back Benches in previous fishing debates that a long-term strategy should be published in the form of a White Paper. That suggestion has always been refused on the ground that it would be wrong to produce a paper that would display and weaken our hand in renegotiating the common fisheries policy. That argument no longer holds. Our capacity to produce such a policy—it would be applicable to the catching and processing sectors and to the seldom mentioned consumer, who probably represents the most important sector of all — depends entirely on how well the Minister and his team can deliver enough fish for the industry to catch.
The common fisheries policy which is now extant—it is 10 months old—is beginning to show signs of having been developed from the sort of mish-mash that produced the original CFP. The original policy was cobbled together a few days before we joined the EC. I believe that the Government will have a chance to redeem themselves during the negotiations which are to take place on 14 December. The Opposition will be monitoring them with close interest. In so far as the Government are able to deliver, we shall give them our support. They must be aware that failure will accelerate the decline in a traditional and proud industry in which there is no possibility of replacing job opportunities. We shall not forgive the Government if they fail the industry yet again.

Sir Michael Shaw: I am glad to take up the remarks of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes). He began by saying that he felt that we had reached a bad agreement on the common fisheries policy. I disagree with him. It was essential that we reached an agreement, and in the circumstances we came to a good one. Whether we were in the Common Market or whether we were not, we had to have an agreement that covered the North sea. The problem lies with implementing the agreement and not with the agreement itself. I welcomed the hon. Gentleman's constructive remark that an agreement that provides a successful future for the industry would be welcomed by both sides of the House. A degree of co-operation and a genuine willingness to consider the problems and their solutions is helpful to any Government who happen to be in office.
It is fortunate that we are having this debate at a time when the fishing industry is suffering most of all from a lack of confidence. It has uncertainty about the future but that is not to say that fishermen are not buying new vessels. They are doing so but with a great deal of anxiety and we must remove as much of that anxiety from them as quickly as possible. The remarks of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food were especially helpful to the industry in that respect. He is doing his best, along with his team, to bring certainty and agreement into the fishing industry.
I should like to know how much consultation has taken place with the industry on the building and decommissioning grants. I understand that sections of the industry are not satisfied that there has been full consultation with them.
The fishermen to whom I have spoken have expressed concern about the 1983 quotas but the 1984 total allowable catch quotas have been in the forefront of their minds. There is a clear need to arrive at a resolution as quickly as possible. There is a fear that the proposals that are being advanced represent a decrease of about 26 per cent. I have

been told firmly by the fishermen in my constituency that the English fleet could not exist if proposals of that sort were accepted. It seems that figures have been inflated in the past and that "paper fish" have been used to secure agreements on quotas that would be acceptable to all parties. If that practice has continued for several years, there is a danger that this year reality will have to be introduced. That might mean a reduction in quotas for Britain in weight of fish rather than in percentage terms. If that is so, I feel that there is great cause for concern for our fishermen. However, I hope that that will not be so.
Quotas are only as strong as the inspection system, and it is about that system that we hear grumbles. When we hear them, our own fishermen are whiter than white and everyone else is a rogue. That is natural but we must take it with a pinch of salt. I have no doubt that if we were in their position we would take the same attitude. The inspectorate system has produced 13 inspectors who will, in effect, be inspectors of inspectors. There still remains considerable worry, which derives from the fact that experience has shown that even if we managed to ensure that the system worked well — that is a big "if" — it might take several years of examining, taking cases to the Commission and going to court before the system began to work smoothly and the nations concerned accepted their responsibility in full. We have seen that happen in other areas of agriculture. If it occurs again, we could be fished out and our industry decimated. The problem causes considerable worry to the industry.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North referred to the decommissioning grants and so on. The money that will be put at the disposal of the fishing industry, either by the Commission or by the Government, is limited. I want the money to be used to strengthen the future of the industry If the decommissioning grants are given—I am not clear about this matter from what has been said—to people who are pulling their boats out, or who have had them laid up for months and are getting out of the industry altogether, such support is wasted money for the fishing industry. It should be used to build up the industry. I hope that we shall hear further explanations of the uses to which the money can be put.
Digressing briefly, the Lancashire cotton industry was given money to put a hammer through its spindles. I saw mills full of spindles—I was in practice at that time—that had not been used for years and, by the grace of Clod, a hammer had not previously been put through them, so everyone subsequently made a fortune. That did not help the industry in the slightest, but it cost the taxpayer a large sum. I do not want the fishing industry to face that situation. We must do everything possible to build and sustain the fishing industry with the available funds.
Our inshore fishing fleet has a good future, and nowhere better than in Yorkshire. However, the confidence and skill of our fishermen must be matched by fair trading conditions. The landing charges in the Yorkshire area are 4·5 per cent., compared with 2·5 per cent. in Scotland. That is just not good enough. Prices are such that fish can be brought from the north and sold in competition with the fish from our ports. The problem must be examined.
The fishing ports must not be regarded as secondary to the tourist industry. Of course, the harbours and fishing boats look nice in pictures, but fishing ports must be properly run, with full and modern facilities for boats and merchants. If they are so run. they will prosper and at the


same time provide a tourist attraction. Without proper facilities, the harbours will die, as will the industries. Needless to say, they will not be much use for tourism. We must accept that the fishing industry is vital and the amenities provided must be sustained nationally and locally.
The fishermen have plenty of confidence and are prepared to put their money with their confidence, but they must have proper support if they are to succeed.

Mr. James Wallace: I beg to move, at the end of the Question to add:
including an agreement on herring quotas acceptable to the United Kingdom fishing fleet, an agreement on 1984 total allowable catches at the earliest possible date, and an immediate lifting of the ban on sprat fishing by boats less than 40 feet in length; and further calls upon the Government to seek an increase in the Community Fisheries Inspectorate and a speedy introduction of log books, and to undertake further discussion with the industry about the minimum mesh size applicable in the North Sea, and the regulations relating to the minimum size of lobsters.
I welcome the debate, because the common fisheries policy has been in operation for 10 months and we have an opportunity to review the year, immediately prior to the Minister attending the next meeting of the EC Fisheries Ministers. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman has judged the mood of the House and I hope that we shall strengthen his hand in the forthcoming negotiations.
When the motions for European debates are tabled, one is faced with a list of documents to examine. I do not believe that the image of the European Community is enhanced by such lists. In case the Europhobes wonder whether the EC, having made us go metric and decimalise, is now trying to interfere with time, I should reassure the House that amendment No. 1 in document 8076/83, which relates to Blackwater herring—
Fishing is prohibited from the 1st March to the 31st April"—
is a misprint.
The debate is taking place against a different background from that immediately following the conclusion of the common fisheries policy agreement in January. Although I was not a Member of Parliament at that time, I have looked not only at the exchanges following the ministerial statement, but at the debate in the subsequent week. It appears that the then Secretary of State was basking in an aura of euphoria and self-congratulation. He said:
The agreement will last for 20 years and therefore will provide a very firm long-term basis for our fishing industry to take advantage of the substantial benefits it receives from it." —[Official Report, 26 January 1983; Vol. 35, c. 899.]
At that time, the major national fishing associations welcomed the settlement, although the two fishermen's associations in my constituency viewed the agreement with some foreboding. The events of this year have proved their judgment to be more correct than that of the major national associations.
The best observation on the agreement came from my predecessor, now the noble Lord Grimond, who said:
The test of the agreement lies in the future.—[Official Report, 31 January 1983; Vol. 36, c. 56.]
The agreement this year has gone sour. There is no need to recount the various meetings which held out expectations which were subsequently dashed. That is a reflection of the way in which the policy has worked this

year. Although we are two or three weeks from the end of the year, boats have been laid up for as long as six months. The North sea herring fishery grounds have been reopened, but unless we have good weather during the next two or three weeks, we may not fish our full quota this year. From discussions that I had earlier this week, it appears that our mackeral quota will not be fully taken up. When boats have had to lay up for a considerable time, that is a sad reflection on the policy.
Substantial sums of capital are invested in fishing boats, and unless our fishermen have a reasonable opportunity to earn a return on their capital, the policy must be reexamined. One hopes that we will gain more hope from any discussions that take place next year.
The common fisheries policy promised our fishermen certainty, to which would be linked enforcement. The then Secretary of State laid great emphasis on the enforcement provisions in the agreement of 25 January. Certainty is essential to the fishing industry because fishermen must be able to plan their activities, the species that they will catch and the fishing grounds that they will visit, so that they can have a sequence of fishing throughout the year.
We must have certainty so that our processing and marketing industries can adapt themselves to the fishing industry. Bearing in mind the history of herring fishing this year, we have been far removed from any certainty. The opening of the herring grounds in June was announced at short notice after a ban on fishing for five or six years in the North sea.
It is to the credit of our0 fishermen and the processing and marketing parts of the industry that the June and July fisheries went as well as they did. Even at short notice, many processing plants were able to respond to the challenge. This year, we have had uncertainty. Next year, we shall want certainty.
Herring were a glaring omission from the CFP settlement. Of course, herring loom large in the Scottish psyche. When I was at school, part of any geography lesson included discussion of the great Scottish herring fleets. Some of my constituents remember the days when it was virtually possible to walk across the herring boats in Lerwick harbour to the island of Bressay. Of course, the herring fleet is much smaller now, but the importance of the industry is widely recognised in Scotland.
There have been suspicions about the times when the herring grounds have been open during this year. As my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said in his intervention, fishermen in the north-east of England were gravely disappointed that they were not allowed to fish for herring off Longstone in August and September this year, at the time when it would have been most useful to fish those grounds. They view with suspicion the opening of herring grounds in the last weeks of the year. After all, herring and kippers are not usually associated with traditional Christmas fare. Our fishing fleet may not see this as a proper time, for processing and marketing reasons, to fish for herring, but the Danish industrial fleet may be able to take up its full quota and use the fish for fish meal. We must insist that the first priority is fish for human consumption.
Fishermen's associations have suggested a quota of about 35 per cent. for the United Kingdom. That is well in excess of what the British fleet was catching in the late 1960s and early 1970s, but there are good grounds for claiming such a high percentage.
The dates against which we measure our historical catch were times when our industry was undergoing considerable changes. The old drifters were being laid up and our fishermen were exercising voluntary conservation measures, while the Norwegian and Danish boats were stepping up their industrial fishing and taking vast catches from the North sea. In the end, the grounds had to be closed. It would be unfair if historical catch figures were based on the years when our fishermen wre observing conservation measures and the Danes and Norwegians were trying to scoop the pool.
The most recent Community proposals envisage a sliding scale of herring quotas for the United Kingdom, ranging from 28 per cent. to 22 or 23 per cent. as the total allowable catch increases. I agree with the Minister that it is not a good bargaining tactic to reveal our bottom line, but it is fair to point out that the bottom line of the latest proposals would not satisfy our industry.
The Minister may feel that he should not have his hands tied by fishermen's associations, but I hope that the mood of the House will convey to him the message that a quota of 22 or 23 per cent. would be regarded as inadequate. Many people had hoped that when herring quotas were allocated they would be provided for each of the three sectors of the North sea. It seems unlikely that that will be done. If a national quota is allocated, I hope that it will be subdivided between the three areas. Otherwise, one country may try to take its whole quota from the rich fishing grounds in the northern part of the North sea.
The Minister said that he hopes that it will be possible to hammer out a compromise on 1983 total allowable catches. One of the anomalies of the CFP is that only four or five weeks ago the British fishing industry was almost praying that 1983 TACs would not be agreed, because that might have halted fishing, yet as we come towards the end of the year there are great possible advantages in reaching an agreement.
I agree that a 1983 agreement for the purposes of 1984, while not as good as a 1984 agreement in itself, is better than nothing, bearing in mind the legal complexities that would arise if there were no agreement. It will probably be impossible to agree 1984 TACs at next week's meeting, but we urge the Minister to ensure that they are agreed at the earliest possible date. Only if we have such certainty will there be any possibility of arranging essential fisheries management. The fishing industry would like to think that in the early part of January it will be able to look ahead and have some idea of how much, where and when it will be able to fish.
Both sides of the House agree that the efforts of our fishery protection vessels in enforcing British waters are admirable. The right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) may have had different experiences, but I seldom go to Lerwick without seeing a fishery protection vessel that has brought in a recalcitrant foreign skipper. Certainly the Shetland Times regularly reports cases in the Lerwick sheriff court in which foreign skippers are fined.
However, suspicion remains. In the Minister's statement to the House after the meeting of fisheries Ministers in July, he asked for proof. None of us has proof, but the fear and suspicion in the industry cannot be overlooked. It is believed that British fishermen tend to play it by the book, but the fleets of many of our European partners do not.
When the CFP was agreed, we were led to believe that £500,000 had been allocated in the Commission's budget

to pay for enforcement measures. We were told that about 30 inspectors would be appointed, but the number has been whittled away during the year and their date of appointment has been put back. It is only in the last two months of the year that six or seven inspectors have taken up their jobs.
One might ask what has happened to the £500,000. If that money was meant to run a Commission inspectorate of 30 for the best part of a year and we have had only six inspectors for two months, what has happened to the rest of the money?
The industry wishes to see log books introduced quickly. Their introduction has repeatedly been postponed. I understand that the books are at the printers, where they will no doubt be printed in multifarious languages. When does the Minister expect the log books to come into operation?
It is proposed to increase mesh sizes in the North sea from 80 mm to 90 mm. It is accepted that there must be proper conservation measures, and increased mesh sizes are part of the programme. However, many parts of the industry are worried that the increased mesh sizes will result in our fleet not being able to take up its full quota of whiting. Of course, what slips through the British nets will be picked up by the Danish industrial fishers. I understand that the proposal has been postponed until 1 January 1985 and I know that our industry would welcome further consultation about more effective methods of conservation.
I float that suggestion only as a possibility. I understand that mesh sizes were brought in as a means of conservation to back up minimum landing sizes. Increasing the minimum landing size might be a better means of enforcing conservation than increasing mesh sizes. If minimum landing sizes were increased, that might be the equivalent of cutting the quota by 10 per cent., and it would be the poorest 10 per cent. of the catch that would not be landed. When one increases mesh sizes or cuts a quota, it is often the fish with the greatest value that are not landed.
The Community should not be a centralised bureaucratic organisation, but one sensitive to the needs of different areas, and in particular the remote rural areas. The aspect of the settlement of the common fisheries policy that caused the greatest disappointment to my constituents was the fact that there was no proper regional management scheme to be implemented.
Some small matters are very important to small communities. The problem of sprats affects small fishing communities in Tyneside, the firth of Forth and the Moray firth. The Minister has told us that there is hard scientific evidence in favour of the ban from October to March. However, the 1972 Cameron report suggested that the summer months were the best months for a ban on sprats, for that is when they spawn The report suggested that if there was an effective ban then there would be no need for such strict measures during the winter months.
The hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) has suggested that boats under 40 ft. tong could continue to catch sprats as a by-catch without there being a significant impact on the young herring that the measure aims to protect. I am glad that the Minister has said that he will review the position in the coming year. He gave us no undertaking, and we do not expect one at this stage, but I trust that he is well aware of the strong feeling on the matter.
There is also strong feeling about the minimum size for lobsters. The shell fishing industry is important in the Northern Isles and the Western Isles and along the north coast of Scotland. It is important not only to those who engage in it full time but also to the many small crofters in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), for example, who supplement their income by shell fishing. Those people fear that if the minimum size for landing is increased, the non-professionals who indulge in lobster fishing as a hobby will not be so strict in their observation of the regulations. Such people do not put back lobsters which are smaller than the minimum permitted size.

Mr. Beith: The skindivers who take lobsters as a weekend sport are subject to no landing restrictions. The lobsters are taken away in the boot of the car, and no conservation measures are applied.

Mr. Wallace: My hon. Friend understands the fear and suspicion felt by lobster fishermen. A proper licensing system should be introduced not only to establish whether there is a need for this conservation measure but to ensure a better form of policing. The Minister should not underestimate the strength of feeling among the lobster fishermen. They feel that there should be some fairness so that they can continue to earn their living.
The Minister mentioned the regulations that he intends to bring forward in connection with the decommissioning grants. They are welcome, although we shall wish to read the small print of the statutory instrument. I remind the Under-Secretary who is to reply that the decommissioning grants, construction and modernisation grants and exploratory voyages are only a small part of a restructuring package.
There is not often unanimity in the fishing industry, but the Scottish Pelagic Fishermen's Association and the producers' organisations have achieved some unanimity in agreeing on some structural licensing. There is a fear that the Scottish Office has been dilatory in conducting consultations. When can we expect an announcement about this part of the restructuring package?
The Minister's comments on the amendment did not entirely satisfy us to hold to the bipartisan or tripartisan approach which is sometimes useful. In this connection, I congratulate Willie Hay on his appointment. We will not press the amendment to a vote this evening.
The fishing industry is vital for many remote areas. On the Skerries, for example, stuck out into the sea, a viable community is sustained by a small fishing fleet and a processing industry. The island of Westry in Orkney has a population of about 800. Unemployment there is very low because there is a fishing fleet and on-shore processing. Catching, processing and marketing go hand in hand, but these communities will continue to be viable only if the industry has the certainty and security that it needs. I hope that the Minister will meet his European counterparts in a spirit of resolve, will achieve a herring deal that is acceptable to the industry and will introduce some certainty into the common fisheries policy.

Sir Patrick Wall: At the beginning of his rather lengthy speech the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) pointed out that this debate would

be important in relation to the meeting of Ministers on 12 December. That is true. My right hon. Friend has made many important statements tonight. I am sure that the distant water and in the inshore sections of the industry will both welcome them.
I should like to record our thanks to the Scottish Pelagic Fishermen's Association, the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations and the Sea Fish Industry Authority which discussed these problems with the Committee of which I have the honour to be Chairman. The Minister has indeed answered the basic points made by those important associations.
Conservation areas and TACs are vitally important but, as the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) and my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Sir M. Shaw) pointed out, they have to be enforced. My hon. Friend also pointed out that the 13 inspectors are not just there to inspect themselves. They also have to inspect national inspectors of each of the EC countries. That is why there is no need for a large number. That point is not well understood. The inspectors have held exercises in the United Kingdom, France and Holland already. We are moving in the direction of proper inspection of catches.
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland mentioned log books. I understand that they have been translated into various languages, are being printed, and will be available in the early spring. The Minister may be able to confirm that when he replies. I shall leave my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Sir W. Clegg) to deal with the worries of the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations about the Irish sea. It feels that there should be more conservation in that area by introducing conservation areas or a licensing system. It is worried that foreign beam trawlers do not comply with the regulations.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West is not here at the moment. I know that he is interested in the Isle of Man extension to 12 miles. It has been pointed out that if that happened there would be a damaging 30 per cent. to 40 per cent. over-capacity in the rest of the Irish sea.
The point has been made by the NFFO—it was also mentioned by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland — that the Danes were using 8mm nets for industrial fishing. That damages immature fish. This point has been mentioned time and time again during fishery debates. The Danes are a problem with this and other matters. I hope that this debate will be studied in Copenhagen and that the Danes will restrict their industrial fishing to by-catches. Otherwise they are taking the mature fish which should be available for human consumption.
The NFFO also suggested that the increase in mesh sizes to 90mm, which will take place in January 1985, should be advanced a year. I am not sure that I can agree with that, and I do not think that my right hon. Friend does, because considerable time is needed to adapt to changes in mesh sizes.
Restructuring is vital for the Humber ports, as the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) said. When we joined the EC the British deep-sea fleet—it used to be called the distant-water fleet — consisted of 250 vessels. As the hon. Member said, there are now 30 fewer operational deep-sea boats. When I first went to Hull 30 years ago, it was our country's major port. There are now eight vessels operating from there. Whose fault is that? I do not believe that anyone can be blamed; it is a result of the 200-mile limit. We all now have to fish in our own backyard. No effective use can be made of such


magnificent vessels which cost up to £1·5 million each. They were important for supporting the Royal Navy. Unfortunately, they have more or less had their day. I say "more or less" because my right hon. Friend mentioned exploratory voyages and the Falkland Islands. I hope that my right hon. Friend will use his influence with the Foreign Office to see that the Falkland Islands limits are extended to 200 miles. I think that that measure would commend itself to both sides of the House. The Foreign Office have been pussy-footing on this issue.
Decommissioning grants are absolutely vital to the distant water fleet. I said during an intervention that they must be available this year so that we can count the 1982 catches otherwise we will be in an appalling mess; the banks will foreclose, and the distant-water fleet will virtually disappear.
The representatives of the Scottish and English inshore fleets have said that they want fuel subsidies, but fuel subsidies are out of order within the EC. However, they pointed out that the French still have fuel subsidies. I do not know whether the Minister, when he replies, can tell us why that happens. The French seem to get away with an awful lot. I gather that operational subsidies are also banned by the EC. Therefore, the decommissioning and lay-up schemes announced by my right hon. Friend are very important for the deep-sea fishing fleet. Suggestions have been made by the representatives of the fishing industry and the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland that there should be regional restructuring. I see the point of that, but I do not believe that it is acceptable. Restructuring has to be done nationally.
We now have building, modernisation, laying up and decommissioning grants. I understand that there are also grants available for modernising ports — we are not discussing that today—from various national and EC grant-aided sources. That is important.
Marketing and training have been mentioned briefly. I understand that the SFIA wants a pump-priming grant for its marketing approach which will be concentrated upon species of fish rather than fishing generally. There has also been some talk about an increase in levy. Increases in levy are never very popular in the catching community and I hope the SFIA will bear that in mind. Although advertising and marketing are important, there are limits to the amount of public money that can be spent.
The NFFO also claimed that there was inadequate training for the inshore fleet. There has been excellent training for the distant-water vessels. I understand that money is available next year for training for the inshore vessels and also that help is available from the Manpower Services Commission. I should welcome confirmation of that.
Finally, on training and safety, I want to make a point that has not so far been raised in the debate concerning the safety regulations which were discussed some years ago. Safety is very important, but the point was made in Committee time and again—I make it again now—that the expense of surveys is enormous. It was reckoned by the NFFO that it was £800 for a 55 ft boat survey. The Treasury is now demanding that the total sum should be paid by the company or the individual. Such a proposal would be a great strain on the finances of individual owners.
Turning to quotas, I understand that 88 species of fish are covered in the regulations of the EC. The only one still disputed is herring, in particular North sea herring. I hope

that agreement will be reached on 12 December. The problem arises between the United Kingdom and the Danes and the Dutch and between the West Germans and the Danes over Greenland.
On the subject of North sea herring, I should like to read to the House a paragraph in a paper submitted by the Scottish Pelagic Fishermen's Association concerning quotas relative to Scottish west coast herring:
The UK was forced to settle for a 61 per cent. share despite the fact that its historical performance would have entitled it to 73·1 per cent.
That we know. The association continued—I repeat it in the belief that it will help the Minister in his fight in the next battle—
It is imperative UK Ministers do not detract from the position reached at the EEC Council Meeting held on 18th/19th October which considered a two-tier approach to the North sea herring total allowable catch whereby all herring caught up to 254,500 tonnes would be for the human consumption market and anything above that would be for fishmeal purposes. If this proposal was to apply from 1984 the UK would, after taking into account its Hague Preference tonnage, receive 22·4 per cent. at a Total Allowable Catch of 153,000 tonnes and 22·5 per cent. at a TAC of 254,000 tonnes. It would receive 17 per cent. of any TAC above that latter figure for fish meal purposes.
The delegation from Scotland made the point very strongly that this was the absolute irreducible minimum. I hope the Minister will bear these figures in mind and ensure that the United Kingdom does not give any more away. He has stood up very firmly so far. I know that he is under a great deal of pressure and I hope he will make it clear that he is not prepared to give away any more to the Danes or Dutch because the United Kingdom has gone as far as it can.
I wish to say a word on klondikers as raised by the Scots and the representatives of the distant-water fleets. We hope that more licences will be available to klondikers, which are very important to the Scottish fleet and to the remains of the distant-water fleet. If the TACs are increased, I hope the Minister will bear in mind that the licences for klondikers should also be increased. I understand that so much was being landed locally in the south-west this year that land prices were depressed, so more klondiking could have been allowed.
Complaints have also been made, with which my hon. Friend will not agree, that the south-west England mackerel box is far too large and, of course, the same complaint comes also from the Scots and the distant-water boys. Can information be made available as early as possible when boxes or areas are closed? It is difficult for any section of the fishing industry to plan ahead when the areas in which they will be able to fish or the quotas they will be allowed to take are not known.
The SFIA made a point that I think is important, that fishing must be controlled by licensing and quotas, and each individual owner or company should be allowed a quota that will enable him to make a profit. Those owners or companies which decide to go out of business once such an agreement has been made should be able to sell their quota to someone else. I have not heard that proposal before and I put it to the House for consideration.
All sections of the fishing industry, particularly the Humberside ports, have gone through an extremely difficult period in the last five or more years. I repeat, the reason for that is not the actions of Conservative or Socialist Governments but because all countries have gone out to a 200-mile limit, and that has affected our industry very seriously.
However, a firm announcement has been made in the House that there is to be a restructuring of the industry and that grants are to be given, and we hope that in the near future there will be agreement on the herring quota for 1983–84. If that can be achieved, the common fisheries policy will be set on a reasonable course, and as we and Europe get used to it, we shall be able to conserve fish throughout Europe and enable all European fishermen, including all British fishermen, to make a profitable living and provide good fresh fish for our various populations.

Mr. Donald Stewart: I take issue with the hon. Member for Beverley (Sir P. Wall), who said that with the common fisheries policy we are on a good course. I suggest that for British fishing we are on a disaster course. I was interested in his suggestion that we should maintain. a 200-mile limit off the Falkland Islands. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is in his place, because when I commented on that in a previous debate on fishing he had left the Chamber. I recall that at one stage he was saying that 50 miles was the least that British fishermen could accept, yet when the time came — I do not want to pillory him, because he took the same view as many of his hon. Friends—the agreement that was finally cobbled was accepted and Conservative Members described it as a good one.
On that point the Shetland Islands council said:
Unfortunately, the events to date have not only shown that there was no cause to celebrate the settlement of the common fisheries policy, but the outcome to date has been far worse than anybody envisaged; the disillusionment of the Scottish fishermen in recent months is, for example, ample proof of that.
The hon. Member for Scarborough (Sir M. Shaw) said that, whether or not we were in the Common Market, we needed an agreement. I disagree totally. I accept that we are in the EC, but were we not in it there would be no need for an agreement because we would have a 200-mile limit. Who can argue against that?

Mr. Harris: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that there are 200 miles between, say, the south-west of England and France?

Mr. Stewart: No, and I believe that my education, including my knowledge of geography, has been as good as that of the hon. Gentleman. Obviously, that sort of situation would have to be negotiated——

Mr. Harris: Exactly.

Mr. Stewart: —but legally the United Kingdom would be entitled to a 200-mile limit. Naturally, if that meant abutting another country, the position would have to be negotiated. That would be far better than the 6-mile limit that exists off my constituency, and if the hon. Gentleman has to face that state of affairs in Cornwall at some stage his fishermen will put him on the rack over it.
I have read the relevant documents, and although they are drafted in reasonably normal English I still feel like the judge who was addressed by Lord Birkenhead. When Birkenhead had finished his address the judge commented, "I am none the wiser", to which Birkenhead replied, "No, my Lord, but you are much better informed." Having read the documents, I do not even come into the second category.
The Minister said that the common fisheries policy was a good policy for Britain and the Community. My view is that their interests conflict. I do not believe that we can have a policy that is satisfactory for the Common Market and gives a fair deal to our fishermen. However, I am glad to know that the subject appears on the agenda for the meeting on 14 December. I am also pleased to be assured that the quotas that have been announced are not acceptable. One wonders at this stage what point there is in dealing with quotas for the year just passed.
If I may quote the Shetland Islands council again, it said on 26 September:
failure to agree on quotas for all species for 1983, with only three months of the fishing year left is clearly absurd.
So it is. One would hope that the negotiations will deal with the year ahead.
In the past year, after six years of a ban on herring fishing for our own vessels, they were kept out of areas where the Norwegians were allowed to fish for herring. So our fishermen had to suffer six years of restraint and being kept out of these areas to build up the stocks for the Norwegians to fish eventually. That shows the absurdity of Common Market policy.
I agree with the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) that our aim should be that herring is sold for human consumption. I can remember in my home town of Stornaway hundreds of vessels, without exaggeration, from Lerwick down as far as Lowestoft and Yarmouth coming regularly to fish. Hundreds of thousands of tons were being taken from all the fishing ports around the British isles at that time, but the fish were being caught by drift nets, which meant that only mature herring were caught. There was never any danger to the stocks, although there were enormous catches in years like 1927. The immature fish got away and were able to grow up. The problem with herring has arisen because of the methods of fishing.
The Scottish Pelagic Fishermen's Association has been quoted by the hon. Member for Beverley. Its chief executive, Mr. Robert Allan, said:
We are becoming completely disenchanted with the common fisheries policy … Confidence in the CFP is at its lowest conceivable ebb.
It is greatly to be regretted that the Minister did not use his right of veto in the last negotiations. If the Scottish industry had known that a bill was to be presented in 1983 for Danish overfishing and that it had to be paid mainly by the United Kingdom, it would not have agreed to the common fisheries policy in the first place.
It appears from the quotas that extra importance has been given to the needs of the German deep-sea fishing fleet rather than to the requirements of the Scottish fishing villages. The main beneficiary will be Denmark, which has been responsible for overfishing North sea herring in the past.
I note that it is proposed to reduce the quota for mackerel from 185,000 tonnes to 151,000 tonnes. What is the reason for that? The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food should be aware that every year for the past 10 years at least there have been 30 or 40 large vessels from eastern European countries in the port of Ullapool in the north-west of Scotland buying up mackerel. Surely an arrangement could be made for the mackerel to be processed ashore in the United Kingdom. Tremendous markets exist for that fish all over the world, yet we are letting them go by.
On the question of conservation, I sympathise fully with the feelings of Cornish fishermen about Scottish fishermen and others fishing there. It is a very good axiom that fishermen in an area should have the right to their own fishing ground. If the Government had the will, local management schemes would be possible and should be adopted for Shetland, the Western Isles, the Clyde and so on, and for Cornish fishermen as well.
I welcome the increase in the mesh size for fishing herring and the minimum landing size proposed for mackerel.
With regard to the inspectorate, I agree with the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) that there are far too few officers. Six have been mentioned, but even 13 are not enough. I took issue with the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland when he was speaking about protection—not, I hasten to say, that I do not think that the fisheries protection service is doing a good job, but because it is too thin on the ground. The Scottish Office should increase the fleet and ought not to use that fleet for fishery protection for salmon rivers. That is not the main purpose. It should be used against foreign vessels scooping up fish in United Kingdom waters.
I welcome the grants for renewal and improvement of vessels, although I believe that the proposals spell redundancy for many men in the industry. The Minister made great play of the amount of money involved. Although it is welcome, it is very minor compared with what the farming industry receives every year.
We can argue about all these problems in relation to the Common Market, but we must face the fact that the present position is very difficult. I appreciate, of course, that the present Minister took office only recently and is therefore not responsible for the situation except as part of general Government responsibility.
Spain has one of the largest fishing fleets in the world, if not the largest. When Spain joins the EEC it will demand its share. Our present problems will seem very minor when that stage is reached. That makes it even more important for the Government to ensure that our fishermen have a fair deal.

Mr. Barry Henderson: The right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) doubted whether he would be better informed, let alone wiser, through reading the documents before us. I have great sympathy with that view. Here we are, with about 15 shopping days to Christmas, discussing what should be the total allowable catches, quotas and the like for the year 1983. That is something of an irony and helps to create some of the confusion that arises as events take their course.
Document No. 7022 proposes to maintain the increase in minimum mesh size applicable in the North sea from 80 mm to 90 mm with effect from 1 January 1984. That document was published in May this year. I understand that since then the implementation date has been further postponed. Perhaps my hon. Friend will clarify that.

Mr. John MacKay: It has been postponed until 1 January 1985.

Mr. Henderson: I am grateful to my Friend. I understood that it had been postponed, but the document before us implies that it will be implemented in 1984.
I do not go all the way with the right hon. Member for Western Isles on the Cornish question. He stressed the importance of recognising local fisheries interests. Although there are local fisheries, in many parts of the country there is also participation in other fisheries. There is often a knock-on effect right round the coast. Whatever the decisions about where to draw the lines, one thing must be clear. When an agreement is reached, based on conservation measures, negotiated agreements or whatever, all parties must adhere to it. If they do no like it, they should seek to change the basis of the agreement.

Mr. Donald Stewart: What I had in mind were the suggestions that local fishermen should have preference, not that fishermen from outside the area should be excluded.

Mr. Henderson: The mackerel fishery would not have the commercial potential that it has were it not for the way in which Scottish fishermen played a part in the development of the market for such fish.
What stirred up trouble and raised temperatures in Cornwall — we all agree that it was an unfortunate incident—was that Cornish fishermen believed that the arrangements for the box were different from what they in fact were. They believed that Scottish fishermen would be excluded from the box because of the practicalities of fishing methods. However, the Scottish fishermen discovered, by experiment and at risk to themselves, legitimate and legal methods of fishing there which met the conservation requirements. Therefore, they could fish in waters where Cornish fishermen had not expected to see them.

Mr. Harris: Does my hon. Friend accept that bulk catches inside the extended mackerel box, whether done legally by a technicality or not, were wholly contrary to the concept of the box as envisaged by the Government and by the Commission? Does he accept that the concept of the box was to prevent bulk catching?

Mr. Henderson: I shall not dispute with my hon. Friend the technicalities of the matter. The purpose of the box was conservation, which we all agree is important. None the less, the criteria that were deemed to be important for conservation in the box were clear and specific, and the Scottish fishermen accepted them. I should add that Scottish fishermen, before the box came into effect, had urged the Government to impose a quota to prevent over-fishing.
It was unfortunate that a Cornish fisherman wrote to Fishing News last week trying to stir up trouble and to raise temperatures, because at the weekend representatives of Scottish fishermen—it is not their custom to do business on a Sunday—went to Cornwall to discuss the matter with Cornish fishing interests and to cool temperatures, but they were given the brush-off. I hope that people will soon talk together to ensure that reasonable conditions prevail among seamen. Nothing should be done which in any way endangers life at sea or harms good 7elations among seafarers.
My right hon. Friend the Minister made some helpful announcements about restructuring. I hope that, in addition, he will examine the infrastructure of the industry, onshore facilities, the status of harbours, the handling of boats within them, and the processing and distribution of fish, which relates to the work of the Sea


Fish Industry Authority. That, just as much as a restructuring of the fleet, will help to ensure a healthy fishing industry in future.
My right hon. Friend the Minister, who gave a perceptive analysis of the problems, told the House about the policies that he will pursue in trying to cope with them. His announcements were encouraging, and we look forward to hearing more details before the Christmas recess. Perhaps not least encouraging was the way in which he showed a clear understanding of the industry and its needs. I hope that he will continue to maintain close consultation with those who represent the interests of fishermen and of the industry generally. They have earned the right to confidence from his Department and Ministers through the responsibility that they have shown over a number of difficult years, and I believe that my right hon. Friend is earning their confidence now.

9 pm

Mr. Stuart Randall: I compliment my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) on the way in which he brought to the attention of the House the problems that we have recently been experiencing in Hull. He managed to show vividly the scale of the devastation of Hull catches since we joined the European Community.
I propose to add to some of the figures that my hon. Friend presented to demonstrate the devastation. When we joined the EC, there were 69 wet fish trawlers, with a gross registered tonnage of 52,000 tonnes. In addition, 28 freezer trawlers were operational, and 22 freezer trawlers were either being built or on order. That meant a complement of 50 freezer trawlers, with a gross registered tonnage of 84,000 tonnes. A total of 119 vessels — a substantial fleet, which was mainly a deep water fleet—were bringing a substantial tonnage of fish into Hull. Now there are only eight freezer trawlers left, with a gross tonnage of only 10,000 tonnes. I hope that the House can see from these figures and my simple analysis the scale of the devastation that has resulted entirely from the loss of fishing opportunity.
If one talks to the owners who still remain in Hull, they say that that was the key factor — not lack of investment, not the long Humber estuary, not the dock or fuel charges, and not industrial relations. One owner told me yesterday that he feels that industrial relations in Hull are excellent. No factor caused this devastation other than the loss of fishing opportunity, and that was not under the control of the fishing people of Hull.
In addition, 126,000 tonnes of shipping have been decommissioned, and at no cost to the Government or the EC. In monetary terms, those 126,000 tonnes of lost shipping are roughly equivalent to between £40 million and £50 million. That figure can be used to illustrate the size of the disaster that has hit the port of Hull.
In addition to the loss of vessels and fishing opportunity, we have had enormous redundancy problems. Most of the discussion takes place on the replacement, restructuring and decommissioning of capital equipment, but the human problems have been immense. I and my other hon. Friends representing Hull have talked to the Minister of State, Department of Employment about redundancy payments, and he has admitted that 100 cases are being looked at now, presented to him by the Transport

and General Workers Union. I hope that this Minister will get together with the Minister of State, Department of Employment to see whether some scheme can be pulled together to compensate the large number of fishermen for the loss of jobs that has resulted from the Government's policy. I also hope that some EC moneys can be used to finance such a scheme.

Sir Patrick Wall: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. One of the difficulties is that of deciding how far back to go with the redundancy payments. As he said, the disaster for the port of Hull has extended over many years. If we considered redundancies up to seven years ago, the sum of money involved would be substantial.

Mr. Randall: I can understand the difficulty that the hon. Gentleman has pointed out, but I am sure he would agree that we must examine such a provision retrospectively. How far to go back would have to be considered carefully by the Government. Nevertheless, there would have to be a retrospective consideration.
The companies which remain in Hull are in extremely difficult circumstances. Some are under immense pressure. I have listened carefully to what has been said about the decommissioning grants. Although the Minister assured us about the moneys that are becoming available, we want to be absolutely clear that there will be no delay in their payment. We cannot tolerate delay, as it might have some serious consequences. Companies might fail as a result and irreparable damage, which would be disastrous for the industry, might be done.
Hull also has much land-based investment. If we lose the remainder of the catching fleet, investment in processing and the big cold stores and the Hull Fish Landing Company could be vulnerable. That would be almost the last straw. Hull has taken much stick from the Government. So far we have not had the money, although we have had some assurances today.
This week the Government announced the closure of the lorry research station at Hull. I was deeply worried when I heard that people who work there had not been given any official announcement that they were to be made redundant before they received a Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food press release which gave them that information. That is a disgrace. Moreover, the employees have received no counselling as to what job opportunities will be available in Aberdeen or elsewhere when the research station closes.
Hull is anxious to establish a middle-water fleet. Will the Minister clarify the distinction between decommissioning and restructuring grants? As I see it, decommissioning grants will help companies in Hull to survive, but to what extent will they be enabled to finance the new vessels which will be required for the future? I understand that restructuring grants are intended to equip the British fishing industry with vessels to match the fishing opportunity. Hull does not have any vessels to meet the opportunity that has been given to it so far. I hope that the Minister will reassure the House, not only that the decommissioning grants will be available as soon as possible, but that there will be restructuring moneys to help us to rebuild the Hull fleet.
I end on that important note, and thank my hon. Friend for Aberdeen, North for bringing to the attention of the House the extremely serious situation in Hull.

Sir Walter Clegg: I shall not take up what the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) said, except to say that we in Fleetwood have also suffered a diminution of our deep-water fleet. In fact, we no longer have any deep-water vessels based on the port. So I understand the problems that he faces in Hull.
I shall address my remarks to Fleetwood. I listened carefully to the speech of my right hon. Friend. It was an important speech, which we shall need to study before we can be sure of all its implications. Merely to hear what he said from the Dispatch Box is one thing; to realise the full implications of what he said is another.
It appears that my right hon. Friend has listened to the representations that were made by the NFFO, in that the length of vessels entitled to decommissioning grants and laying up grants is to be reduced. I understand, too, that the age limitation is more in line with what the NFFO wanted. If I seem cautious in my welcome for my right hon. Friend's remarks, it comes from listening to so many statements in the House when we seem to see a new dawn, but no new dawn came. It is therefore with some hesitation that I see the scene developing.
My right hon. Friend had the advantage of visiting Fleetwood in October. He met the people there, saw the facilities, and listened to the problems. In one small respect, the problems have abated since then, in that an industrial tribunal has found in favour of the inshore men being able to land their own vessels on the quays without the use of national dock labour. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] That is a great advance for the port, and makes it more attractive to fishing vessels.
I appreciate that the package on restructuring that my right hon. Friend has presented this evening is important for the future of the industry, because it will try to match the fleet with the opportunities. That needs to be done. However, I am worried about the short-term situation in Fleetwood. It is now clear that the Government do not intend to give an operating subsidy. We were told that the last two were illegal. That is one of the problems. The other problem is that they were granted while the negotiations on the common fisheries policy were taking place. If the achievement of the CFP and its operation had led to better business for the fishermen of Fleetwood, and if those fishermen were any more economically viable than they were, I would say that perhaps the case for financial help, other than what we have heard in the package today, had not been made.
However, from my examination of the accounts of the best inshore vessels using the port, I am sure that this winter will be critical. Whether our fishermen can survive it and take advantage of these other opportunities, I do not know. They have been pessimistic in the talks that I have had with them. During the summer recess I spent hours with them discussing these matters. So I hope that my right hon. Friend will watch the situation carefully. I am more pessimistic than I usually am. I am not pessimistic by nature, but I see the problems ahead. Last year's frightful weather did not allow the fishermen to put to sea for long periods. Let us hope that we shall be luckier this time. The situation is, however, serious, and I would be neglecting my duty if I did not so inform the House.
The Minister heard from the fishermen's own lips about the problems of fishing in the Irish sea by the big Dutch beamers and trawlers. We have been harping on about that

for years in debate after debate. There seems to be a difference of opinion between the scientists and the fishermen. The scientists say that these great beamers cause no harm by dredging up the sea bed, whereas the fishermen say they do. The fishermen told me in the autumn, "The fish are not there," and blame that on the beamers. I understand that a close period for sole in the Irish sea is under consideration by the scientists in Brussels, but I hope that the Minister takes more notice of the fishermen.
A problem peculiar to fishing ports on the west coast of the United Kingdom has arisen because of discharges from Sellafield into the Irish sea. Greenpeace has been operating off Sellafield, and I understand that over the weekend it put into Fleetwood. Only today I read that fishermen close to Sellafield were unable to sell their fish. It is only right that their apprehensions should be allayed.
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for the monitoring undertaken by his Department. Today I asked:
if he will publish the results of the monitoring of fish and shellfish which his Department has carried out following the recent incident at Sellafield; and if he will make a statement.
It is important that the statement should receive publicity. The written reply said:
My Department's fisheries radiobiological laboratory has analysed samples of fish and shellfish collected in the Sellafield area. For fish the range of values obtained was consistent with the levels of radioactivity that would have been expected prior to the incident. The concentrations of caesium are in general less than those recently published for 1981 reflecting the reduction in 137Cs discharges from Sellafield. No other radionuclides were detected in fish. It is clear from these results that any additional exposure to members of the public resulting from the recent incident through the consumption of fish would be negligible.
The message should go out from this House that people can safely eat the fish landed from fishing boats operating in the northern Irish sea. That will perhaps put an end to the scare, although I trust that my right hon. Friend's team will continue the monitoring as part of the larger problem of radiation from that plant.
There has been much talk about the setting up of the inspectorate. Like all other hon. Members, I believe that that is important. There have been too many examples in the past of overfishing, with absolutely dreadful results. I know that Nelson turned a blind eye in Copenhagen, but there is no reason why the Danes should follow his example. It is time that they stopped, and the sooner we get a fisheries inspector ashore in Danish fishing ports and others, the better. I understand that inspectors are already in France and I hope that Mr. Mitterrand is not getting at them.
Recently there was a large gathering at the House of the representatives of the British fisheries organisations, who came to see Members of all parties. I have every sympathy with their cause. It is galling for redundant fishermen to read and hear about men who have been made redundant in other industries and who have received large redundancy payments while they are left out in the cold because their pattern of work—shared fishing—has been different from that of others.
I realise, of course, that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is not directly responsible for redundant fishermen. If there had been fish available for them to catch I would not have so much sympathy for them, but their redundancies stem from the lack of fishing opportunities in deep-sea waters. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Minister of State,


Department of Employment is pursuing the interests of redundant fishermen. I hope that he will come to a successful conclusion.
In fisheries debates there is always a good deal of common ground between the parties. We wish the Minister well when he attends the next fisheries meeting. He knows that we think it essential that he obtains what he has told the House he is out to get. I wish him well in the talks.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I do not have a direct constituency fishing interest, as there are now no fishing vessels sailing from Greenock and Port Glasgow. None has sailed from the two ports for a considerable time. However, some fine stern trawlers and side trawlers have been built at Fergusons Brothers (Port Glasgow) Limited. If we are to have a new mid-water fleet that is based at Hull, and I hope Fleetwood, I shall be pleased if the work comes to Fergusons of Port Glasgow and other Scottish shipyards. The Scottish-built fishing vessel is one of the finest vessels in the world. I can speak from experience, as I have sailed in them to the Arctic. That experience was short because it required only one north Atlantic gale to put me ashore for ever.
As a novice in this place, I find fisheries debates stimulating and good-natured. I am a member of a fishing family and I think that they reflect a fairly deep knowledge of the industry in all its ramifications.
I do not wish to comment upon the Scottish-Cornish fishermen's dispute. I am rather sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) is no longer in his place for I wished to remind him of the long history of fisheries disputes. At the turn of the century, Shetlanders were encouraged by a bounty of £5—that was a great deal of money then—to report the illegal activities of the skippers of the new Aberdeen steam trawlers. In May 1901, 13 Aberdeen skippers were gaoled for their illegal activities in Icelandic waters. I do not want to suggest to Conservative Members who represent constituencies in the south-west that the Aberdeen fishermen of today behave in the same way as their great-grandfathers or grandfathers. However, I sometimes think that fishing and the management of fishing is too important a subject to be left to fishermen.
We need a radically different national fisheries regime throughout the United Kingdom. We have moved in that direction in an unplanned and inadvertent way because of the exclusion of British trawlers from Icelandic waters and other measures taken in the traditional north Atlantic fishing grounds. We now have an opportunity with the developments in the common fisheries policy—I have many criticisms of it—to develop a national fisheries regime. There is a need to restructure the fleet, especially in the areas of the large purse seiner, many of which do not spend more than 70 or 80 days at sea in any year. The same argument applies to the freezer trawlers. My brother is the mate on one of the biggest freezer trawlers in the United Kingdom. He spends much more time at home than he does at sea on his large stern freezer. The need to restructure is confined, to a considerable extent, to the pelagic fleet and the vessels that used to fish in distant waters.
The decommissioning of vessels has provided us with an opportunity to restructure the fleet, though I am not sure that a grant of £400 per GRT is over-generous. I shall be interested to hear more, as the Minister promised, about exploratory voyages. Opportunities may exist in the south Atlantic or elsewhere for some of our largely redundant stern trawlers. I hope that the Ministry has also considered joint ventures in countries that are just beginning to develop their sea fisheries industry. The Ministry should examine the possibility of exploratory voyages and joint ventures which could assist developing nations.
I have an interest in the industry, because I am a member of the Transport and General Workers Union. Members of my union sail on trawlers out of Aberdeen, Grimsby—not that there are many large trawlers sailing out of Grimsby — and Hull. The industry has been declining since the early 1970s when the Icelanders began—as one of their writers put it—to put up a wall around their coastline.
The work of fishermen is extremely hazardous and they work in a harsh environment. It is essential that the Government examine carefully the French document that proposes changes in this area.
An article in The Scotsman referred to a fatal accident inquiry held last week in Scotland. The inquiry was concerned with the foundering of a Scottish fishing vessel with the loss of the crew of five. The article said that the chief coastguard involved told the sheriff:
there was no conclusive evidence as to what had happened, but he agreed with Sheriff Stewart that a feasible explanation would be that the man in the wheelhouse fell asleep and the boat went round in a wide circle before striking the shore.
Those who know anything about the fishing industry are aware of the hours and the appalling conditions in which the men work. The report stated:
'It is just like a long-distance lorry driver having fallen asleep at the wheel', said the Sheriff. It may be that fishermen drive themselves so hard they should have proper rest perods like lorry drivers."'
Given the varied nature of the fishing industry, it may be difficult to introduce firm rules for all fishing operations, but, as a member of the TGWU and a member of a fishing family, I believe that the Government should carefully examine the French document.
There used to be differences between the quality and quantity of training received by fishermen in the deep-sea industry and those employed in the inshore industry. Following the establishment of the sea fisheries training board, of which I was a member, changes were made in both sectors. Before the setting up of the board, about 50 per cent. of inshore fishermen received no training in survival and fire fighting. That was not true of the deep-sea fishermen at Aberdeen, North Shields, Grimsby, Hull and Fleetwood. The differences have been narrowed and I hope that, following the abolition of the training board, the SFIA will maintain the training establishments and develop training in safety and survival.
Many fishermen have lost their jobs with trawler companies because of circumstances outwith their control and there have been difficulties about determining their length of service for redundancy purposes. Some help could be given by the Humber fishermen's pension fund. That would show how long fishermen at Grimsby and Hull had been employed by trawler companies. It should be possible to examine such records to determine the length of a man's service. Fishermen deserve generous payments for the tough working lives that they have led.
I find it a savage paradox that dock workers can receive up to £22,500 under their severance scheme, yet fishermen in my family have not received a penny in redundancy pay. That is a dreadful indictment of the present system. The Government should offer fishermen generous payments in return for their service to the British fishing industry.

Mr. Michael Brown: This is the first time that I have caught your eye in this Parliament, Mr. Speaker, and it is, therefore, my first opportunity to pay tribute to the then hon. Member for the old Louth constituency, Mr. Michael Brotherton, part of whose former constituency I now represent.
Michael Brotherton was a dedicated Conservative and deeply loyal to Queen and country. His individual and forceful personality and his willingness to speak publicly on a wide range of subjects won him a reputation for outspokenness for which he was much admired. He was the essence of a patriot. I know that the House will wish him and his family well, especially as this has been a difficult year for him.
The subject matter of this debate has important consequences for the eastern part of my constituency around Cleethorpes. I represent many fishermen employed in Grimsby. I am not very familiar with the fishing industry, as I have represented Brigg and Cleethorpes only since 9 June. I hope that those with wider experience of the industry will accept that I have a great deal to learn. However, one does not need much common sense to recognise the problems of Grimsby and, as the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) and my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Bulmer) have pointed out, the problems of the fishing industry of Hull and Fleetwood. In the past few months I have become aware of the dire situation of the fishing industry in those ports.
I do not wish to belittle the achievement of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and of my hon. Friend the Minister of State in bringing forward restructuring proposals. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest, I shall wish to digest the details in the cold light of morning. Until I have done so, I am hesitant about welcoming them.
My right hon. and hon. Friends have done a great deal of hard work in the past few months. They, like me, will have to get used to the byways of the fishing industry as they only recently acquired their new responsibilities. I therefore fully understand that they have had a lot of work to do. Dogged determination is probably the best description of their achievements over the past few months.
In addition to £46 million in aid, which the Government are bringing forward under the EC proposals, there is a further £40 million-plus package under the restructuring proposals. That is not far short of £100 million. I must place on record the gratitude of the fishing industry for that aspect of the restructuring proposals.
If the financial package is to have the maximum beneficial effect, we have to learn some lessons about the infrastructure of the industry. When I represented Brigg and Scunthorpe I dealt with the steel industry, which had modern machinery and methods. Any modern method more than a year or two old was outdated.
Grimsby and Cleethorpes are only 30 miles away. One need not know anything about the industry to notice the

aging harbours and the fish markets. The on-land facilities in Hull, Fleetwood and Grimsby are a disgrace. A few weeks ago, with the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), I visited the ports of Esjberg and Thyboren in Denmark to see the extent of the Danish Government's investment in the on-land infrastructure of the fishing industry.
We are on the verge of getting the price of fish right and of achieving the correct relationship between the international market and the common fisheries policy. We have to be patient. It is a tribute to our Ministers that the criticisms I hear from fishermen these days are directed not so much towards the quotas and the TACs as to the high cost of landing their fish at the ports of Hull, Grimsby and Fleetwood.
The Department of Employment must contribute if we are to ensure that the fishing industry has a long-term future. My right hon. and hon. Friends at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food can negotiate until the cows come home in Brussels, and they can return with important announcements such as those made this evening, but they will come to nothing if the cost of landing fish is so high that the industry cannot make a reasonable profit. All the good work being done by Ministers is being undermined by the national dock labour scheme at Grimsby and Hull, and until recently at Fleetwood. I was not aware until my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Sir W. Clegg) mentioned it that some progress had been made on the national dock labour scheme at Fleetwood. I hope that the Minister will use his influence with the Department of Employment to persuade it that some discussions should be started. I do not want any confrontation with the trade unions, because that would be the wrong way to proceed.
The trade unions, the TGWU in particular, have a responsibility towards their members who are employed in fishing. The TGWU must sit down and talk with the Department of Employment about some amendments—in Grimsby we call them "lumpers" — to the national dock labour scheme. There are problems in all the scheme ports which make it difficult for fishermen to have a fair crack of the whip.
There should be much greater consultation between the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Department of Employment and the TGWU to see whether it is possible to obtain an acknowledgement from the union that there must be some reform of the scheme at Hull and at Grimsby.
The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) spoke about his interest in fishing vessel safety. He mentioned the hard working lives of fishermen. That is something that we all acknowledge. He said that he was a member of the TGWU. If he has any influence with the fishermen who are members of the TGWU, he should go to the section of the union responsible for the national dock labour scheme. I do not complain about the scheme, because that union was looking after its members' interests. The TGWU, the Department of Employment and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food have an important role to play if fishing in Hull, Grimsby and Fleetwood is to have a future. There will have to be some amendments to the national dock labour scheme.
When I went to Denmark eight weeks ago. I was impressed by the fact that there seemed to be a national policy in favour of fishing. However many inspectors we have and however successful the United Kingdom is in


drawing attention to the problem posed by Denmark within the EC, there will always be a successful fishing industry in Denmark. It is backed politically by the Government. I am not suggesting that this Government or the previous Labour Administration did not want a viable fishing industry. Both Governments have done a good job against a difficult background in trying to argue on behalf of the fishing industry. I have the impression, however, that the fishing industry's political clout in Denmark is much greater than it is here. If my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food want to see their hard work achieve some good, they must argue the fishing industry's corner not just in Europe but in the Cabinet. My hon. Friends should tell their fellow Ministers — in particular the Secretary of State for Employment — that if there is to be a viable fishing industry in this country, the Government must recognise that Denmark does so much better than the United Kingdom because the Danish fishing industry has political clout.
It is refreshing and encouraging that the House has heard contributions from hon. Members whose constituencies are not directly related to the fishing industry. That is an encouraging development, and it should be a warning to my hon. Friends that there is an increase in the political clout of the fishing lobby extending beyond those hon. Members who represent fishing constituencies.
Given the restructuring proposals and the work that is done inside the European Community on the common fisheries policy, there must be a recognition by national Governments that our ports are ancient and decrepit. In Grimsby there is a disgraceful and disgusting state of affairs. The Grimsby fishermen have to unload their fish against the backcloth of very high landing charges. That is caused partly by the fact that Grimsby is a national dock labour scheme port. Associated British Ports, which now runs Grimsby as the successor company to the old British Transport Docks Board, does not have clean hands in the way it imposes on the fishing industry. The port modernisation scheme in Grimsby was devised at the time of the deep water trawling industry, and that no longer exists. We all wish to see a modernisation scheme implemented in Grimsby, but nothing is happening. The port has a disgraceful fish market that is exposed to the elements. When I visited Esjberg and Thyboren a few weeks ago, the infrastructure, the closed-in fish market, was a sight for sore eyes. The fishermen bring in and unload their fish straight on to conveyor belts which carry it into the enclosed fish market. The result is better quality fish and better prices.
Bearing in mind the commercial discipline of Associated British Ports, the Government should recognise the role they can play in providing infrastructure assistance to the port of Grimsby. The fishing owners complain to me about the lack of infrastructure assistance. They acknowledge the excellent work that has been done by my right hon. and hon. Friends against a difficult European backdrop, but they do not wish to see that fine work come to nothing simply because the Department of Employment is not prepared to recognise its obligations.
Mention has been made of redundant fishermen. I add my voice to the voices of other hon. Members who have drawn the attention of the Minister to the problem. The Minister may rightly say it is a matter not for him but for

the Department of Employment. It is incredible how often mention of the Department of Employment crops up in fishing debates. In future it would be a good idea if the Ministers of State, Department of Employment attended fishing debates as their responsibilities are so crucial to the fishing industry. The Minister of State, Department of Employment has a crucial responsibility which he cannot shirk by referring to the redundancy payments legislation of 1966, enacted by the previous Labour Administration, as restrictive. I do not intend to make a party political point.
The Minister of State must realise that he cannot get away with saying, "The redundancy payments legislation does not allow me to make provision for redundant fishermen." If one set of Ministers can come to the House tonight with £100 million just like that, their counterparts at the Department of Employment should similarly be prepared to come forward with amending legislation to redress the injustice to redundant fishermen, of whom there are many in my constituency. The British Fishermen's Association, which has headquarters in Cleethorpes, was responsible for organising the lobby of Parliament that was supported by hon. Members from all parts of the House two weeks ago.
I come to the fishing industry as a new Member in one sense, but I come with the same experience as the Ministers have had at the Department. They must recognise as quickly as I have the dire straits of the ports of Grimsby, Hull and Fleetwood. I hope that the Minister will take on board the comments that I have made about the responsibility for the fishing industry that rests with the Department of Employment.

Mr. David Harris: Odd though it may seem, I welcome the fact that I am probably the last Back-Bench speaker to take part in the debate. I welcome it because it gives me an opportunity to reply to various points regarding the Scots and the Cornish that have been made throughout the debate.
We must allow the common fisheries policy time to settle. After four and half years' experience of the European Parliament, I realise that we cannot do things quickly when 10 countries are concerned. Although most of us are critical of aspects of the common fisheries policy —I have deep reservations about the effectiveness of the policing as at present envisaged — I am firmly of the opinion that the choice is between a common policy of some sort or a free-for-all, and the latter would be disastrous for the fishermen, whether they come from Scotland or Cornwall.
We shall never get a perfect policy. Life is not like that, particularly in the fishing industry. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) hoped that there would be certainty. There cannot be certainty in fishing; fishing is not like that. What our fishermen want is some reasonable political certainty, or at least the removal of the dreadful political uncertainties that have bedevilled the industry for so long.
In addition to that, there will always be an element of conflict. Those of us with fishing ports know that there is often conflict between fishermen in the same port. There are conflicts between the fishing fleets of the Community countries. I regret to say that there are conflicts even now between the Cornish fishermen and some elements of the


Scottish fleet. I say that with regret, because I should hate hon. Members to feel that there are bad relationships between the Cornish and Scottish fishermen.
With respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Henderson), the representative of one section of the Scottish fleet who spent the weekend in Cornwall was not given the brush-off by the leaders of the Cornish fishing industry. If such a gentleman comes to the area at short notice, he cannot expect to see everybody he would like to meet. I am afraid that he could not see me on Sunday, although he telephoned me and we had a long conversation. He was not given the brush-off and I know that the representatives of the Cornish fishermen are only too happy to meet that gentleman or any other representative who comes from Scotland to speak on the matter.
Anger is rising in Cornwall. The last thing that we want is a war with the Scottish fishermen. Tempers are rising because, as I tried to make clear in several interventions during the debate, the Cornish fishermen reckon that a dodge is going on, and I think they are right. The enlarged mackerel box off the south-west was introduced with one purpose only — to conserve stocks of immature mackerel. Anyone who has stood, for example, on Pendennis Head at the height of the bulk catching season in years gone past or even now and who has seen the fleet of factory ships — sometimes 40 and sometimes 60, mainly from Communist countries — can only ask himself, "What are they doing and how much mackerel are they handling?"
Of course, that fleet is not the cause of the problem. It is a manifestation of the over-fishing that has gone on in recent years. The stocks of mackerel have been brought to danger level, almost to commercial extinction. I have visited the constituencies of some Opposition Members in Scotland and have met their fishermen. As the evening has gone on and we have had a few drinks they have told me that they are doing to the mackerel off the south-west what they did to the herring off Scotland and that they will go on doing it until someone stops them. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) shakes his head, but that is what they have told me. He knows it is right because he knows that the catching capacity of the Scottish fleet, particularly the purse seining element, is huge. If it is to operate to full capacity or anything like full capacity it can and does devastate fish stocks. That is the root cause of the problem. I pay tribute to the Ministers who in previous years have at least tried to bring the problem under control.
I came to the conclusion some time ago that things had reached such a serious point that we had to have a box to control the activities not just of the Scottish fleet but also of our continental colleagues, to put it no higher than that, who where fishing beyond the 12-mile limit without any check or control. The box is a blunt instrument. I would much prefer a more sophisticated mechanism. I share the views of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland; I should like to see a move towards a regional approach, but because the scientists at long last recognised that the stock of mackerel was in a dire state the box had to be introduced.
What horrified Cornish fishermen and anyone who knew about the subject was the regulation which appeared. When they saw it they realised that there would be an exemption for bottom trawling. With respect to hon. Members who have taken up the interests of Scottish fishermen in the House tonight, they know, I know and

everyone knows that the practice being indulged in by some Scottish fishermen is not bottom trawling. It is difficult to prove that it is not bottom trawling, but it is not, because mackerel are not caught by fishing and trawling at the bottom. It is as simple as that.
The regulation is defective in that regard. The Scottish fishermen and one or two Cornish fishermen have exploited the loophole. I would be prepared to turn a blind eye to that exploitation if I thought that things would remain as they are, but they will not. Now that some Scottish fishermen and one or two Cornish fishermen are getting away with it, what is there to stop bottom trawling by every other person who is interested in this? I can tell the House that a number of Cornish fishermen have said that they will not go bottom trawling but that they will do so if the exploitation of the loophole continues.
If it continues, not merely an ever-increasing number of Scots and more local boats but vessels from other EC countries will suddenly develop a keen interest in bottom trawling. If that happens, the box will be absolutely worthless. It would have been better not to introduce it if it is to fall into utter disrepute. That is the danger. That is why I have spoken with some passion and why I believe that the Government must take action.
I thank my hon. Friend the Minister of State for meeting the chairman and secretary of the Cornish Fish Producers Organisation, Mr. Michael Townsend and Mrs. Daphne Lawry, at short notice this evening, and for his assurance that this serious situation is being considered very carefully.
Let it not be thought that there are plenty of mackerel to be fished so it does not matter too much. I believe that representatives of the Scottish fishermen have suggested that the Ministry has underestimated the size of the southwest mackerel stock. Dr. John Sheperd who, I believe, is in charge of the Ministry research laboratory at Lowestoft has said—I have indirect permission to tell the House this — that the advice for conservation of immature mackerel in the present mackerel box should be for a total stop on trawling within the box and that the adjustment upwards of the scientists' estimate of the south-west mackerel stock as a result of a more refined basis of count in 1983 did not justify any relaxation of the conservation measures embodied in the box.
I therefore ask the Minister and the officials in Brussels with whom I have been in touch today, to examine carefully and put a stop to what I regard as the present abuse of the box. Otherwise, that whole system for conservation will collapse.

Mr. Donald Stewart: I agree with a great deal of what the hon. Gentleman has said at about mid-water and bottom trawling, but he is unlikely to get any satisfaction from the Government because the Scottish Office is in the process of preparing legislation which will make it legal to trawl right up to the coast. Previously, in the light of the court case in 1977, they were kept at least three miles out.

Mr. Harris: I did not quite follow that point, as there is a 12-mile limit around most of our coast—although, regrettably, in the south-west it is only six miles.
My right hon. Friend the Minister devoted a considerable part of his speech to restructuring. If we are honest about it, that is a euphemism for scrapping in some cases. I believe that that is necessary, especially in relation


to some of the purse seiners mentioned earlier. It would, however, be the height of folly to scrap part of our fleet and reduce our catching capacity while allowing larger numbers of Spanish vessels into the waters around our coastline. Before I entered Parliament I was involved in a fight to deal with the abuse of Spanish flags of convenience, but that did not end the threat.
The total tonnage of Spanish vessels each weighing more than 100 gross registered tonnes each is 552,000 tonnes. The gross tonnage for that category of vessels in all 10 countries of the Community—I doubt whether Luxembourg has much of a fishing fleet—is only a little more than that at 575,000 tonnes. I fully endorse the remarks of Opposition Members that Spain poses a real threat in this regard. We must cope with that threat, and ensure that Spain does not increase its catching capacity, especially in the south-west. We must also ensure that Spain does not increase its capacity by stealth. I know that Ministers will watch this matter carefully in the months leading up to the detailed negotiations on Spain's accession to the Community.

Mr. Martin J. O'Neill: The Opposition welcome this debate, which has been wide-ranging. Your generosity, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and that of your colleagues, in interpreting the wording of the documents enabled hon. Members to deal with many aspects of the common fisheries policy. It is fair to say that, after nearly 12 months of operation, it is appropriate now to examine the policy. Some might say that it has operated in fits and starts and has not operated fully. A representative of Scottish fishermen, who was in Brussels when the policy was finalised, said that the only thing that a Scotsman could celebrate on 25 January—the date on which the policy was agreed—was the birth of Robert Burns. He would certainly not celebrate the establishment of a common fisheries policy.
As there will be no vote on this debate, since there is little difference between the parties on the matter, I do not wish to be too churlish. However, I must say that there have been unconscionable delays in many aspects of the consideration of the CFP. The documents were produced late because the Commission took so long to reach agreement; the technical advice from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea was not provided until fairly late; and the figures for total available catches and catch quotas were not put before the Council until the end of May. Those figures were amended in July and again in November. We shall probably talk later of the Minister's expectations for the 14 December meeting.
Several hon. Members were gloomy about what might happen on 14 December. The hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris), in his previous incarnation — I do not know whether he has left that area entirely—with some colleagues, wrote a booklet which said that the common fisheries policy was an enormous step forward. However, their euphoria was somewhat tempered by the elegant expression that there was a need for continual refinement. Many hon. Members believe that the policy needs substantial refinement; and hope springs eternal for some of the improvements that we would wish to have.
In April the previous Minister discussed restructuring and quota management policies, and he began

consultations on the need to restructure restrictive licensing, decommissioning grants, laying-up premiums, and the construction and modernisation of vessels.
I hope that the Minister will not ignore what took place in the consultations between April and November. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have made out a case for a plan for fish with wider considerations, and this should be a matter for urgency. We do not want extensive consultations, as in the intervening period since April the Ministry has been acquiring a great deal of information, in the form of opinions and representations from interested parties. It will not be helpful to the industry if we delay any longer than is necessary a clear statement of response to all of the points that I have made. I appreciate that the Minister has gone some way towards making the Government's views clear.
In April of this year we were expecting a quick statement on quotas. By May, the Government said that there was a prospect of conflict on 6 June. As we know, other things intervened about that time and the meeting was postponed. After the events of 9 June, a new Minister took over. We should like to think this somewhat unpleasant, disagreeable aspect of his activities — the continuing negotiations — will be completed by 14 December. However, there is probably more chance of us getting a white Christmas than that—in other words, it is not impossible but unlikely.
The total allowable catches must be resolved as quickly as possible, because pervading the whole debate have been the uncertainties surrounding the future of the industry. Many of us understand the point made by the hon. Member for St. Ives about which he obviously feels strongly, on the rights of the Cornish fishermen and the activities of a number of Scottish fleets. In many respects, the anxieties spring as much from the uncertainty and fragility of the industry at the moment as anything else.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie), who is a regular participant in this debate, is not here because, in his usual pugnacious way, he would have probably defended his constituents. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) referred to The Press and Journal, and yesterday's addition which implied that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan would be here. With all due respect to those Scottish Members who tried to defend the Scottish fishermen, it is unfortunate that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan was not here this evening to do the job that some of the fishing people suggested in the newspaper that he would.
We must caution against the complacency and false optimism displayed by the Minister. We have had a procession of Ministers coming back from Brussels with some sort of half-baked scheme suggesting that all is well and the next meeting will clinch it. We are no longer, if we ever were, blind to the blandishments of the Minister. I shall quote from the Euro-fish report of 28 July, published about the same time as the Minister returned with one of his statements. Talking about the problems facing the industry and the Community it said:
Hostilities between member states which should have been buried with the signing of the CFP were this week resurrected in all their former glory … The Danes were as ever branded as the root of all evil, the Dutch switched loyalties in mid-session, the French outmanoeuvred the British with a neat last-minute negotiating strategy, the Greeks made their bid for cash from an already under financed structural reform policy, and only the


Germans seemed prepared to make any sacrifice for the sake of settlement, offering in vain a reduction in their own herring quota to smooth the way for acceptance by the other governments.
I did not read that to make a party political point as much as to point out that that was the nature of the negotiations. We know that our EC partners are as tricky as a bag of monkeys in these matters. We should be foolish not to recognise that. It is important that the Minister does not try to kid us that the negotiations require only one more shove to be successful. We should like to think that. Nevertheless, we occasionally imagine that he endeavours to convey that impression, if only for the 35 minutes that he takes over a statement, until he can return to the redoubt of the Ministry.
It is significant that, on 28 July, we were given a clear expression by Mr. Bob Allan, who is a member of one of the Scottish organisations, that Scottish fishermen might have been less enthusiastic for, or sympathetic to, the common fisheries policy if they had known of some parts of the deal which were not given wide currency in the House. I refer to the agreement that allowed the Norwegians compensation at the expense of what Mr. Allan regarded as the right of Scottish fishermen. He believed that that would have changed the attitudes of some parties to the original deal.
We are not here to rewrite history. We recognise that we have a CFP of sorts — somebody called it an example of accidental integration. We do not wish to go over that point but we should like more clarity.

Mr. Henderson: With regard to the Norwegians, I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees that the negotiations between the Community and Norway are every bit as important for many Scottish fishermen as the arrangements within the Community. I support the hon. Gentleman in that regard.

Mr. O'Neill: It is not often that I receive support from the hon. Gentleman. I am thankful for small mercies. I must read the record tomorrow to ensure that what I am being offered is not a poisoned chalice.
We recognise people's sensitivities and sensibilities. The issues surrounding the southern approaches and mackerel spring from the uncertainty which the lack of clarity has created. We welcome the Minister beginning to become specific. We also welcome the assistance that he has offered today. I am sure that many right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House agree that we must ensure that we find means of keeping the money which is to be provided in the industry. We do not want people to leave the fishing industry and open a warehouse down the road with the money that they have received. We want it to be used to protect jobs in other sectors of the industry.
I see that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland is living off puffs of smoke. If he wishes to clarify the issue I am happy to give way to him. I am patient enough to wait for him to do that during his winding-up speech. He is not without ingenuity and it should be within the bounds of his competence to devise schemes by which the objectives which right hon. and hon. Members have requested today can be achieved.
We welcome the decommissioning grants and the speed with which the promise of implementation was made. We could criticise the fact that that matter has been on the stocks for some time. We are now told, however, that the money is available. We have also been told that there will

be simple application forms. I do not know what a civil servant means by simple application forms, but I look forward to seeing them.
On the joint venture to the Falklands and the expeditionary fishing forces going there, I can only say that the market that will be found there may be the troops who are now there. It has been suggested that it is uneconomic for some of the fleet to go to Newfoundland. Certainly, this offers new prospects, and we shall have to wait and see what happens.
The decommissioning of boats has been the subject of considerable debate this evening, but the men who worked on those boats live on. Virtually every Back-Bench Member who spoke this evening recognised the importance of looking again at the redundancy arrangements. It appears that the French Government are actively pursuing the matter. Perhaps a French Socialist Government will show a British Conservative Government a thing or two when it comes to redundancy payments, but I would like to think that someone somewhere will tackle the problem. We realise that the energy of the Minister of State, Department of Employment is considerable and that not much of it is being used at present in that Department, and is more likely to be extended in Smith square. However, perhaps he could earn his salary as a Minister of State and try to find a solution to the problem which would be to the satisfaction of all concerned.
The constructive suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) about the status of information on pension funds is worth exploring. I hope that the Minister, in winding up, will undertake to look into that, or get his officials to contact the Department of Employment to do so.
As I said earlier, the French are displaying some ingenuity on redundancy payments. However, we all know that in the Community the French have exercised considerable ingenuity, pretty well since the Treaty of Rome was signed.
That brings me to the subject of inspectors. We hope that this proposal will be carried out as quickly as possible and that the full complement will be appointed. We hope, too, that the Minister will keep under constant review the representations that are made by the industry that the figure is far too low and that more people should be recruited as quickly as possible, if the Minister feels that they are needed. The Opposition do not feel that the burden of proof should rest on the industry. We feel that the Minister would be better to staff this service to the hilt at the outset. If there were insufficient work, the staff could be transferred elsewhere. However, we believe that it is important in gaining the confidence of the fishing industry that this side of the policing be carried out. although we accept that the Minister may say, in reply. that these people are simply inspectors of inspectors. In fact, that has already been said, and I do not deny it. Nevertheless, we want tangible proof of the Government's commitment to inspection of the CFP. We want the work to be done by a lot of people, and we suggest that the Minister has another look at the figure of 30 that has been suggested.
Mention has been made of log books and landing documents. I hope that the spring does not become summer, and the summer become autumn. I hope that this will be done as quickly as possible, and earlier rather than later.
The Opposition are not a million miles away from the Government on many of the issues that have been raised this evening. It is not appropriate for me to go over all the ports in the country and reiterate the pleadings made by hon. Members. Certainly, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) examined the plight of Hull at some length. For a Member representing Aberdeen to concern himself with the problems of Hull is a sacrifice that we all recognise.
The problem of catches must be resolved quickly. We recognise that the deal arrived at will enable the roll-over into 1984 to take place. We want to ensure that the assistance on decommissioning and restructuring will enable our fleet to perform as efficiently as possible, as soon as possible. We also want to ensure that former fishermen receive the same treatment as other people.
I represent a mining constituency. The latest round of redundancy arrangements offered to some of my constituents is commensurate with the dangers, skill and effort involved in the job, often over a lifetime. In many respects, the dangers, camaraderie and skills are similar in the fishing industry. The Common Market, which is the source of many of the improved redundancy arrangements for miners, should also be regarded as a possible source of funding for fishermen.
As my hon. Friend for Aberdeen, North said, we also need to ensure that the restructing of the industry will be accompanied by a labour force that is trained to meet the challenges that lie ahead. The Government must therefore take on board the points that have been made about training. We must have a highly skilled, well trained work force that is capable of working in the way envisaged by everyone who believes in the future good prospects for the industry.
We have heard some optimistic noises, perhaps not as many as we would like, but we recognise that the Government have begun to think in a way that strikes a chord with the Opposition. We shall not damn the Minister with faint praise. We simply say that this is a good start. We want it to continue and we want the improvement to accelerate. That should happen in a way that is fair to those working in the industry, to those who have served the industry and to the communities that over the years have successfully assisted the industry which is now in desperate need of our support.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John MacKay): Rather than make a winding-up speech, I should perhaps leave my right hon. Friend with the quotes of the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) ringing in his ears.
In my experience, debates on the fishing industry, particularly on the common fisheries policy, invariably result in a thoroughly lively exchange of views. This evening has proved to be no exception. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House have the good fortune to be well acquainted with constituents who are fishermen. We all know them to be men of courage and skill who pursue a difficult and dangerous profession. When I get into my bed in London at midnight or thereabouts, listen to the shipping forecast and hear the usual gale warning for Malin and Hebrides, I think of some of the people I know who will be at sea in such weather. From what has

been said, it is clear that we are genuinely concerned about the fortunes of our constituents and our traditional and important fishing industry. That was underlined by the presence of the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), who took part in the debate even though there is not a solitary fisherman in his constituency.
Fortunately, the fishing industry does not rely on history. It has shown great enterprise in adapting to the radically changed circumstances with which it has been faced over the past few years, not just from the common fisheries policy but from changes in technology, the way in which we fish and public taste.
The activity of some sectors has inevitably declined, but other sectors have shown increased efficiency and made maximum use of the opportunities available. The Government's policy is designed to foster that attitude and to secure a framework within which a modern industry can develop.
Since January we have listened to some strident criticisms of the common fisheries policy. Some of them have been echoed during the debate by Opposition Members, but I detected a slight muting of the stridency. It is sometimes convenient for hon. Members to forget what a milestone and an achievement the settlement of the CFP represented.
In the day-to-day problems that face the industry it would be easy to lose sight of the policy's significance. It is a policy for 20 years, which gives a real opportunity for the sort of stability and continuity that the industry has lacked in recent years. Fishermen may say that they are not entirely happy with the CFP, but the evidence of landings and investment do not entirely bear out the prophets of doom. We have heard about the restructuring package, the continuation of market support and the introduction of necessary conservation measures. We look forward to continuing development of the European Community control arrangements, with the introduction of the logbook next year. The inspectorate of inspectorates—a typically European title, if I may say so—for which the Government argued long and hard in Brussels has already started work. Several community inspectors have already visited some of our ports and, not surprisingly, they have been highly impressed by what they have seen.
There are other concrete signs which give us encouragement for the future. For example, for the first nine months of this year landings in Scotland alone were 5 per cent. greater in weight than in the same period last year and 15 per cent. up in value. That is a picture of a buoyant industry. Reports in the trade press and elsewhere in the industry show that about 30 new vessels may be joining the white fish fleet next year. Some of these are replacements for older vessels, but hard-headed fishermen will not make such investments unless they have confidence in the future and a prospect of good returns. Only today I was delighted with the announcement of a £700,000 order for an 85ft fishing boat to be built at the Campbeltown shipyard in my constituency. At the beginning of the debate the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) asked "What can the fishermen fish for? How much can they fish? Where can they fish? When can they fish?" Total allowable catches and quotas which were agreed in January 1982 have remained in force under what is described as the roll-over regulation. The regulation continues to apply while discussions on the 1983 quotas are progressing. The fishermen, therefore, know where to fish and how much to fish. There are


regular discussions between the fisheries departments and the industry about when fisheries, especially those concerned with pelagic species, are to open and close.
I agree with the hon. Member for Clackmannan and other hon. Members that it is unsatisfactory that we have not yet seen the EC proposals for 1984 for some of the most important stocks. There will have to be talks with the Norwegians, and these are currently taking place. I have no reason to suppose that adequate arrangements will not be made for the total allowable catches and quotas for 1984.
I was asked quite a few questions about the restructuring programme. My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Sir M. Shaw) asked about consultation. Written views were sought from all the organisations in the industry with any interest in the subject. The main organisations were invited to augment their written replies with meetings with officials and Ministers.
The restructuring policy has three main aims. The first aim is permanently to remove surplus capacity. It is sensible to help owners to take out of the fleet vessels that can no longer operate economically. In this financial year—of which about three months remain—there will be £4 million available for that purpose. That shows how serious we are. Other fishermen benefit from old vessels being taken out of the industry. The quotas come under less pressure and each remaining fisherman can have a larger share of the quota.
The second aim is to provide temporary assistance for laying-up grants. That is for boats that have a long-term future but face short-term difficulties.
The third leg is to develop a more modern fleet. That is why the bulk of the available money is to be devoted to grants for vessel building and modernisation. The aim, as my right hon. Friend said in opening, is to help the industry to develop a fleet that is well adapted to take advantage of the fishing opportunities open to us.
The hon. Members for Aberdeen North and for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) and my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley (Sir P. Wall) asked about Hull and Grimsby. My hon. Friend the Member for Beverley said that the 200-mile limit had had a far greater effect on the decline of that area than had the common fisheries policy.
Our overall aim must be to encourage the industry to develop a fleet that is structured to take the best advantage of the fishing opportunities open to us. I well understand the arguments for having a strong and effective middle-water fleet. Substantial aid will be available for worthwhile projects that take account of the opportunities and the possible economic viability of the vessels that may be built with the aid of grants.
We recognise that problems have arisen from the reopening of the North sea herring fishing grounds. The North sea herring fisheries this year have been disrupted by uncertainty about quotas at various times of the year. The summer North sea herring fishery was a success. The Shetland producers' organisation, based in the constituency of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), played a responsible and helpful role, as did the Scottish fishermen's organisation, in planning the fishery, as well as the market in an orderly manner.
I assure hon. Members that from the present negotiations we are determined to obtain a settlement on North sea herring that is fair to our fishermen and gives

them good and continuing fishing opportunities. Provided the scientists make recommendations on an area basis, we shall aim for quotas to be managed on such a basis.
As we are in the middle of negotiations, my right hon. Friend appreciates the fact that hon. Members did not force us to expose our negotiating position in this difficult area. We have listened with care to what hon. Members have said. We shall be undertaking the negotiations with the interests of the fishing industry close to our hearts.
The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) referred to objections by some sectors of the industry to the closure, for a large part of the summer, of the central and southern North sea herring grounds. I must inform the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland. who thought that there was no market for herring at Christmas time, that a considerable market exists for salt herring at the new year because herring gives the average Scot that extra drouth which sees him through the festive season.
The Government must rely on the advice that they receive from scientists about the closure of the herring fishing grounds. We are aware of the problems that such closures cause. We shall keep under review the position that developed this year when considering what will happen next year.
My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough expressed anxiety about the 1984 cod and haddock quotas in the North sea. Negotiations are taking place with the Norwegians. I assure hon. Members that we have made it abundantly clear to the Commission that we attach great importance to these stocks. We shall be examining critically the results of such negotiations when they are presented to the Council.
The right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) asked about the reduced quotas for western mackerel for 1983. We are confident that a compromise can be negotiated that will ensure that the quota reduction is not as great as proposed. The latest figure suggested for the United Kingdom is 193,000 tonnes. That amount may prove adequate for our needs this year.
I am grateful for the acknowledgement by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North of the Government's success in negotiating a postponement of the mackerel closure north of 58 degrees north this year. The regulations in which the closure appears last for one year. Having established this year's position, we should be on good ground for maintaining the same date in future years. That is a good example of what the Government have achieved.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North mentioned mackerel being bought at a low price and sold at a much higher price. I was not aware of that practice. If he will supply Ministers with details, we shall be glad to look into it.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I was not speaking of mackerel being bought at £35 per tonne and sold at £350. It is the fish meal that is going at that price after being processed.

Mr. MacKay: I used shorthand expressions to the hon. Gentleman. We know what he meant. If he will give us details, we shall look into the matter.
We had an interesting discussion about the south west mackerel fishery. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) put the case for his fishermen, as I have heard other hon. Members from other parts of the coast put the case for their fishermen. My hon. Friend the Member for


Fife, North-East (Mr. Henderson) and the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North mentioned the problem from the point of view of the Scottish fleet.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North used the problems as an example of the failure of the CFP. It is a bad example, because the problem arises between two groups of United Kingdom fishermen and has nothing to do with fishermen from other parts of the EC. The difficulties encountered by fishermen pursuing mackerel off south-west England are well-known to me and to the Ministers of State, Scottish Office and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. They have had meetings today with the two sides in the argument.
The new box was designed to protect juvenile mackerel and was introduced with effect from 16 November. In the box, normal pelagic fishing methods — midwater trawling and purse seining—are prohibited, but bottom trawling for mackerel is taking place. There is broad agreement in the House and the industry about the need for sensible conservation, and the Government are monitoring the operation of the box. I assure those on both sides of the argument that we are aware of the problem and we shall watch it to see whether anything needs to be done.

Mr. O'Neill: In the absence of an ACAS for the fishing industry, will the Minister make available an official to mediate? We do not want the problem to get out of proportion.

Mr. MacKay: Officials of the Ministry in that part of the country are already attempting to mediate, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that that will continue.
On training, we look to the SFIA to develop training programmes. Our recent discussions with the authority suggest that, with some assistance from the Manpower Services Commission, the authority will be able to provide a satisfactory programme for next year.
My hon. Friend the Member for Beverley mentioned the vexed question of the French fuel subsidy. I confirm that the French Government continue to operate a fuel subsidy. It has been ruled by the Commission to be incompatible with Community state aid rules, and the French Government have been asked to end it. Any failure to comply could result in their being taken to the European Court. We are watching developments very carefully.
The right hon. Member for Western Isles and the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland referred to the attitude of the Shetland Fishermen's Organisation and the island council to the common fisheries policy. The organisation regularly expresses dissatisfaction with the CFP, claiming that it has been a disaster. However, it is interesting to note that human consumption landings by Shetland vessels show increases in the first 10 months of this year, compared with last year's figures, of 47 per cent. by weight and 42 per cent. by value — a rise from £3.9 million to £5.6 million. My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Sir W. Clegg) might find that his fishermen would not regard such an increase as a disaster.

Mr. Wallace: What does the hon. Gentleman think that those figures prove? The increases may have been caused by the fact that there were more fish or that the men went out for more often. If there had been an agreed policy on herring, so that we had been able to fish throughout the year, the figures would have been even better.

Mr. MacKay: I have no doubt that the figures would have been even better, but they were very good in any case, and the predicted disaster has not taken place.
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland and my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, North-East referred to mesh sizes. The regulations on minimum mesh size provide for consideration of a derogation for certain species, including whiting. A decision is to be taken before 31 May 1984. As I explained to my hon. Friend, the date on which the regulations are to come into effect has been moved forward by a year to 1 January 1985.
The right hon. Member for Western Isles and my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives asked about the effect of Spanish accession. The common fisheries policy was worked out on the basis of historic fishing patterns. The same principle would be applied to Spain, so Spanish fishermen would be able to fish only where they could prove historic performance.
The conservation rules for lobsters are just as important as those for any other species, and have been known to the industry since 1981. A minimum of 85 mm was the scientific recommendation for the longer term. The regulation is being introduced in two stages, and the second stage, increasing the size from 83 to 85 mm, will not now take effect until May 1984.
My right hon. Friends and I are well aware that voices in the industry are calling for the introduction of a licensing scheme, but the matter is complex. We shall discuss the possibilities with the industry, but the problem should not be underestimated.
I hope that my right hon. Friend gave the hon. Members for Berwick-upon-Tweed and for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) a satisfactory answer about the sprat area closures. We have had scientific advice on the subject, but we are aware that many fishermen do not accept that it is correct. As my right hon. Friend said, we are keeping the measure under review in the light of the scientific advice, and, if there is any change, we shall be prepared to change the arrangements.
My hon. Friends the Members for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) and for Wyre Forest (Mr. Bulmer), as well as the hon. Members for Kingston upon Hull, West, for Aberdeen, North and for Clackmannan, referred to matters which are more the concern of the Department of Employment. Redundancy payments for fishermen, for example, are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. I will ensure that the various points made about the arrangements for redundant fishermen are brought to his attention. I am glad to see that he is in the Chamber. I have tried to be non-partisan, but I must now make a party political point. The previous Labour Government did not do very much about that problem, despite the fact that it existed then.
Many hon. Members felt that enforcement should be given top priority in the Community. It is important that each member state should retain responsibility for enforcement within its own fisheries limits. The key to effective enforcement in future will be full implementation of the requirements of EC control regulations and the early establishment of a European Commission inspectorate of inspectorates. The British Government, above all, have pushed for that inspectorate to be set up. We have also called for logbooks, and I am pleased to say that logbooks are expected to be introduced during the first half of 1984.
The Commission has assured us that its inspectorate, which was set up at our instigation, will be fully


complemented by the turn of the year; that it has already begun its work; and that visits by teams of Community inspectors have been made recently to to a number of member states. The inspectorate is charged with ensuring that all member states apply the provisions of the common fisheries policy consistently and rigorously throughout the Community. The Commission considers that 13 inspectors should be sufficient. We shall be evaluating their effectiveness and will not hesitate to press for more if they appear to be necessary.
I began by commending the fishing industry's enterprise, and I referred to increased investment. That is healthy. Fishermen want, above all, a period of stability. They want to know in good time what opportunities will be available so that they can plan their activities accordingly. In essence, that is what the Government are trying to achieve. We know that the common fisheries policy is not perfect. We shall take such steps as we can to improve it. Our priority must be to ensure continuity of fishing opportunities and the best possible catches. I am sure that everyone who has the industry's welfare at heart must support those aims.

Mr. Wallace: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Main question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 7021/83, 8076/83, and 8076/83 Amendment I on 1983 total allowable catches, quotas and the conditions under which they may be taken, 7022/83, 7955/83 on technical conservation measures, 7973/83, 8126/83 on quota allocations for Norway, 10158/83 on 1984 fish guide prices, 10568/83 amending the provisional quota arrangements in respect of North Sea herring as well as the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food's unnumbered explanatory memorandum of 22nd November 1983 on fixing the total allowable catch and quotas for the eastern saithe stock for 1983 and of the agreement reached in the Council of Ministers on 3rd and 4th October on technical conservation and structural measures and Norway quotas and on 15th November on eastern saithe and the provisional herring quotas; and urges Her Majesty's Government to secure such improvements to the remaining proposals as may be necessary to meet the needs of the United Kingdom fishing industry.

Orders of the Day — Noise at Work

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer): I beg to move the motion on the Order Paper
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 10322/82 setting out proposals for a Council Directive on the protection of workers from the risks related to exposure to noise at work and of the Department of Employment's explanatory memorandum of 1st December 1983; and welcomes the Government's intention to seek agreement on harmonised, practicable and enforceable legislation to minimise those risks without imposing unreasonable burdens.
I greatly welcome the opportunity for a debate on the European Community's important proposal on an important subject. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) is leaving. I know that it is a matter that he would like to hear discussed because it relates to noise in industry, and not least the mining industry which he repesents in his constituency.
Hearing damage is a serious injury, although it is not taken seriously by a large proportion of the population. It is unfortunate that jokes about hearing are acceptable whereas jokes about blindness are rightly thought to be in bad taste. People do not realise the serious affect that severely damaged hearing has on ordinary life. They also do not realise that damage to hearing is normally irreversible. I feel strongly that we should be interested in the prevention of such damage rather than go in for what sometimes seems to be a fetish—the measurement of hearing damage. We should be seeking ways to protect people from deafness.
I welcome the debate in March tabled by the former Member for St. Albans, Sir Victor Goodhew, when we were able to discuss these issues at some length. I am very conscious in what I say that the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) is here. He more than anyone else will be able to tell the House the serious disadvantage that hearing loss brings, and the remarkable way in which he and others overcome that serious disability.
Since March, I have had the opportunity to visit a large number of places where there are noise problems and several industries where the noise problems are acute. I remind you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I may dare to refer to your previous existence, that you will have known how all pervasive is the problem of noise in industry.
I visited one firm where the management and the unions were proud of the way in which noise was being monitored and they sought to put forward a progressive view of how people should protect their hearing from noise. Indeed, as one went in through the door ear plugs were available to all. I am afraid that as I went round I did not see very many people wearing the ear plugs, although the noise was very high. Eventually I discovered a lady who was wearing the ear plugs in front of an extremely noisy machine. Unfortunately, she was wearing them up her nose because she did not like the smell of the oil in which she was working. I tell the story not to pillory her but to point to the way in which people do not take hearing and hearing loss seriously. Here was someone who preferred to protect her convenience and pleasure rather than her long-term life.
Damaged hearing in youth is very often not noticed. The lowering of ability to hear occurs at a time when one's


hearing is particularly acute. However, there is a natural tapering off of hearing ability in middle and later age and very often people whose hearing was irreversibly damaged in youth but not noticed face retirement—and in these days where we live longer it is a long retirement—without hearing and there is nothing so isolating or antipathetic to normal human relationship than being unable to hear. People with physical injuries who can stagger to a pub can sit down, converse and have a pleasant evening. If a person cannot hear, the ability to enjoy normal activity is very much harmed.
We have already done a great deal in this country, but we have not done enough. A code of practice was published by the Department of Employment in 1972. This is an excellent publication and has had a good deal of effect upon industry. I do not believe that it is enough, but it has meant considerable progress in British industry. There is a limitation on it because it is based upon the general rules of the health and Safety at Work etc. Act. We need to take that code of practice further.
It would have been the Government's intention to bring forth legislation on the British scene had it not been for the proposals of the European Commission. I welcome the decision of the European Commission to move in this direction. One of the great advantages of our membership of the European Community is that we are able to raise the standard of health and safety not only in this country but among our competitors. This enables us usefully and effectively to ensure that health and safety does not become a cost to be borne by one country and undercut by another country. I therefore support the concept that we should operate on a European level.
In looking at the proposals of the European Commission which I do not wish to give in more than very brief outline, as many hon. Members will wish to intervene in the debate, I believe one or two clear problems lie within the present proposal even though I welcome the intention enshrined in it. I intend to work to produce the kind of directive which we in Britain may welcome without exception.
The proposal would set a noise dose limit at 85 decibels and require that whenever reasonably practical this be complied with by noise reduction rather than reliance upon ear protection. The proposal would also mean other measures being taken at this level, including noise measurement and compulsory hearing tests which may be referred to as audiometry, as these technical terms sometimes add a certain lustre to what is a fairly normal activity for workers. The requirement to do what is reasonably practical is important, because it permits the cost factor to be taken into account and does not imply the taking of unreasonable measures that would threaten the viability of industry. We must accept that the problem of deafness is sufficiently serious for us to expect to take measures even though they be expensive. On the other hand, it would obviously be ridiculous to lay such burdens on industry that people are not deafened because they have no jobs to go to. There is a real balance to be struck in this matter, and the Government seek to do that.
We welcome the directive, but we have serious reservations about some of the details. First, the nature of the level. I do not believe that one level is a sensible approach. The level at which audiometry is necessary

might be thought to be a different level from that at which other measures should be taken. There is no reason why we should be fixed on one level.
Nor does it seem reasonably practicable to limit noise exposure by technical means to as low a level as 85 decibels in a number of industries. One can get round that by derogation, and that is the proposal, but it is not satisfactory because the practical effect of the Commission's proposal would be to compel the wearing of ear protection by workers where there is only a low level of risk and where, it follows, there would be considerable resistance. I have found it to be a common view on both sides of the House and on both sides of industry that to insist on workers wearing ear protection at a point where most workers would feel that it was an encumbrance and not a protection would mean that many people would be subject to a criminal charge in circumstances that would be indefensible.
It is therefore vital to fix the right level. In saying that, I am not for one moment derogating from my basic belief that this is a vital area of health and safety. I hope that by sponsoring and pushing a major change in the approach to the matter—by having a campaign of noise awareness and all that is associated with that—I have shown that it is an area in which I am particularly interested. We must get the level right, and that does not mean to say that we are trying to back out of any responsibility in the matter.
We accept the need for the maximum exposure limit to be set at a reasonable level above 85 decibels, a limit that can be enforced and will not require provision for extensive or loosely controlled derogation to deal with particular problems. We have not yet reached a decision on what that level should be. We are in negotiation and we want the view of the House, of the European Parliament and of the other member states before we reach that decision. The dangers of too low a level are that enforcement would be ineffective and in some cases downright non-existent.
It would also mean, if we were to have the same level for audiometry, that we should spend a great deal of money on compulsory medical examinations, with a problem about human rights—they are connected with compulsion in this area but not in others — and we should require such examinations at relatively low levels of risk. The costs would be high, as I say, and we should be measuring deafness rather than protecting people from going deaf, and I am not interested in mere measurement. I am interested in using measurement where it might save people's health and improve their opportunity for protection. Therefore, we should not hinge all actions on a single level of noise. We should seek for uniformity between member states, and that is more likely if the directive is realistic and is not one that clearly cannot be enforced.
The awareness campaign that we have started will also help us to achieve the other objective that is conceived within this approach, and that is to have action at the level of design. We want to see that new machinery does not make the same noise as old machinery and that we gradually design out the noise that afflicts people and creates deafness.
Therefore, I commend this to the House. We can by proper negotiation produce a sensible answer which will be an enforceable directive which will bring all the countries of the European Community into line. We can make sure that the very serious damage done to so many


of our fellow citizens by noise in industry is eradicated. We can increasingly ensure, principally by noise attenuation and secondly by hearing protection, that people who work in noisy atmospheres will not go deaf and will know that new machinery, when it replaces old, will itself be more silent. If the House can support what I believe to be a commonsense and common approach on both sides to this issue we can make a great deal of difference to the health and safety of the people of Britain.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Before I call the hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans), may I point out that a large number of hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye? We have approximately 75 minutes of debating time left. The arithmetic will be obvious. If hon. Members behave with restraint, we may get all or most of them in.

Mr. John Evans: Many hundreds of thousands. possibly millions, of people in this country suffer from an impairment of their hearing. Not all but many of them have been affected by excessive noise at their place of work. That fact is accepted everywhere by every scientific and medical body, and by every employer group and trade union group. It was not always so. Indeed, people like myself and some of my hon. Friends who worked in industries such as shipbuilding, shiprepairing, steel and heavy engineering suffered terribly for many years because of the appalling noise problems at our place of work.
It was sad to watch men in the shipbuilding and shiprepairing industry lose their hearing as the years passed by. One of the saddest sights was to go into a workmen's club, a social club or a labour club and see elderly retired shipyard workers sitting in a world of their own having a pint because they could not engage in conversation or a game of dominoes or do the other social things which they should have been able to do. Because they could not hear, they could not join in the general entertainment and relaxation.
This important Community directive is attempting to take a major and decisive step to removing this industrial hazard which affects so many hundreds of thousands. It is important to appreciate that noise does not simply bring about an impairment in hearing or even deafness. Studies have shown that excessive noise creates hypertension and can be damaging to the nervous system. Often it entails a substantially lower work performance and creates higher accident rates in work places. Often much time is lost through higher sickness rates. All this can be laid at the door of excessive noise.
Taking all those factors into account, I was disappointed that the Confederation of British Industry in its consultation paper in the parliamentary briefing took such a negative attitude. It is regrettable that it could not find anything worthwhile to say about the directive and damned it at every level. When such an organisation has not a single word of praise for the directive one suspects its motives.
Accepting the Commission's 85 decibel level proposal has a financial cost. Each of us is well aware of that. Not implementing the directive also has an enormous cost, as I have already related. The cost is not just financial. The CBI seems to have lost sight of the enormous human cost.

The Minister and I are at one in our concern about the social impact of hearing loss on many thousands of people in this country.
All who participate in this debate should appreciate that the Commission's proposed 85-decibel limit will almost treble the number of workers protected by the legislation. There are always problems in persuading some workers to use the protective clothing and equipment offered, but that does not mean that we should do nothing. As I shall explain later, a great deal more needs to be done.
The 90-decibel limit allegedly operating in the United Kingdom does not have the force of law. It is merely a voluntary code of practice and we all know that it is ignored in many industries. Industry must also bear in mind that workers employed in areas of excessive noise need to get out of the area from time to time to rest their ears and their nervous systems. My hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) will confirm my experience. Working on vessels under construction on the stocks with three or four caulking operators around, we had to get off the ship for half an hour occasionally to save our sanity if not our ears. That, too, is part of the additional cost of excessive noise.
The heart of the EC proposals is article 4.2 which lays down the 85-decibel limit. The Opposition support that, although the Government seem not to be too happy about it. The Minister spent some time rubbishing the proposed limit and failed to commit himself or the Government at this stage. I hope that they will agree to go below the 90-decibel limit which some sectors of industry did not favour originally but rallied round when they saw the proposal for a lower limit.
Any proposed legislation must also cover other important proposals. Article 7 refers to the installation of signs informing workers of noisy areas. The Minister himself described the experience of opening the door to a plant and being hit by a wall of noise. The provision of signs would not cost a great deal.
Article 8 stresses the necessity to ensure that correct hearing protectors are available and that a choice is offered. Employers sometimes seem to believe that if they provide just one type of hearing protector their duty is done. It would not cost a great deal more to give the workers a choice.
Article 9 is extremely important, referring to the necessity for medical surveillance of workers in the noisiest operations and of all workers who have to wear ear protectors due to excessive noise. Regular audiometric examination, to use the Minister's term, is essential, as all who have worked in noisy industries and suffered ear problems recognise.
Article 11, which is equally important, requires that workers should be informed of the risks and should be supplied with the maximum information. If the dangers inherent in industrial noise were made clear to young workers, and they knew of its likely impact in later life, there would be much less resistance to the wearing of ear protection. At present, younger workers may think that it is not macho to wear ear protectors, or fear that their fellow workers will think them less than manly. We know that that is nonsense, but we must get the message across to workers, especially to young workers.
When the Government introduce legislation, they must initiate and sponsor research into the reduction of noise from machinery. They must examine the new techniques that can be used to reduce noise, and better working


processes. Careful thought and planning could begin to reduce noise, but, unfortunately, even today, machinery is installed and work processes are adopted without any thought being given to the impact of noise on workers.
The House should recognise that although tonight we are talking about the protection of workers in future, the Government should also consider those workers who have already lost their hearing. The Minister will have read the judgment in the case of six Newcastle workers who lost their hearing.

Mr. Roger Freeman: I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman said, but is he saying that he favours the acceptance of an 85 decibel limit, whatever the employment consequences? Does he agree that in some cases, including some examples in my constituency, if the directive were applied there would be a reduction in work, which would be resented by those who work, for example, in the sawmills in my constituency?

Mr. Evans: I shall answer the hon. Gentleman's point later, because I now wish briefly to mention the Newcastle judgment. I appreciate that some of the points that I have raised may not be enshrined in the Government's proposed legislation, but, as the Minister has a powerful influence in the Conservative party and in the Government, I put it to him strongly that until now the tests and conditions for qualifying for industrial benefits have been too stringent. The judge in the Newcastle case said that if the tests were too stringent—he believed that they were—it was a matter not for the courts but for Parliament. The judge also found that 1963 was the operative guilty date, if I may call it that, for employers. That is not a satisfactory way of establishing the date from which employers can be found guilty in common law of neglecting the requirements of their workers. We need more evidence about this matter. The Government should also consider the derisory awards made to the six Newcastle workers.
The classic test of deafness is no longer of someone visiting the doctor and saying, "Eh?", "What?" and "Pardon?" Skilled medical practitioners can now measure the smallest degree of deafness, so there is no question of people rooking the Government or the state.
I urge the Government to accept the Commission's proposals eventually to implement the 85 decibel limit.
The 85 decibel limit is already a factor in West German and French legislation, and they are two of our major competitors, as well as two of our major partners in the EC. I hope that the Government will accept that as a basis for the future, rather than the other suggestion of the 90 decibel limit.
I recognise the force of the Minister's point, and legitimately, derogations could be used for particular industries.

Mr. Harry Cowans: I draw my hon. Friend's attention, and that of the Minister, to the fact that the same arguments were used years ago when we were talking about fitting guards on circular saws, and we are still fighting for them.

Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend is correct. One of the problems is that when any organisation suggests an improvement of safety at the workplace, someone always says that the cost of the safety element is far in excess of

what is required and would probably put the company out of business and everybody out of work. We have faced that argument in the past, and we shall face it in the future.
For some places because of the special nature of the work, a derogation can legitimately be given within the terms of the EC proposal, and I am sure that the Minister will be looking for such things. I hope that we can move towards acceptance of the 85 decibel limit. The EC talks of five years, and I am sure that, if necessary, we can have discussions with our European partners about whether that is a realistic limit.
It is important that we signal our long-term intentions to industry as early as possible, so that it can start taking the necessary judgments and decisions on the capital investment that it will need to make. If we do not, and we accept the 90 decibel limit, then there is no doubt that in five years' time, when we wish to move to a lower decibel, we shall be told that we should have said so five years before, because industry has since made all the capital decisions, and a new level will cost a fortune.
If we were to consider the views of everyone involved in industry, the undoubted view of the work force would be, "The lower the decibel limit, the better." The House has a duty to listen to those workers and respect their views.

Mr. Michael Colvin: I congratulate the hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) on his excellent speech, made all the more valuable by the fact that he has personal experience of the shipbuilding industry, which has always been a noisy one. I am sure that the House will applaud the campaign by the Health and Safety Commission to alert British industry to the dangers of noise at work. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on applying that evangelical zeal that has become the hallmark of his political career to that campaign and now to the issue of the EC directive on the harmonisation of the regulations on noise.
I was encouraged to see my hon. Friend's answer to an oral question on 8 November from my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker) who asked whether, as well as protection from noise, he did not also feel that it was important to protect the jobs of the workers and
the competitiveness and existence of the industries in which they work.
That might not be possible if the EC regulations are imposed precisely as they are presented to us today. I was pleased to see the optimism of my hon. Friend the Minister, when he replied to that question by saying that he thought that it could be done
without damaging the competitive edge of British industry
and that he would see to it that
the terms proposed in the directive will be changed considerably." [Official Report, 8 November 1983; Vol. 48, c. 138.]
What he has already said shows considerable flexibility of approach, and I am glad about what he said about balance.
The number of workers exposed to loud noise is staggering. A level of 105 decibels, which is the level of a loud pop concert, a drop forge or even a Young Conservatives Christmas party, is a dangerous one, if continuous. According to the Health and Safety Executive, more than 25,000 workers are exposed to noise like that. I say "noise like that" because many more than 25,000 Young Conservatives attend parties at Christmas time.
More than 7,000 workers are exposed to 90 decibels—that is enough to make shouting necessary when talking to someone at arm's length. Hon. Members who have been into factories to talk to constituents know that having a conversation in that sort of environment is quite impossible. Another 1·7 million workers are exposed to a daily dose, or eight hours, of 85 decibels, and 2·5 million are exposed to 80 decibels.
There is general agreement that more needs to be done about noise protection. I can understand the European Commission's desire to harmonise occupational noise levels to a common maximum. However, I do not agree that the maximum should be 85 decibels. That would represent a drop of about one third in the noise intensity, because the measurement is logarithmic rather than linear.
The proposal will endanger the viability of some industrial processes, or even whole companies. There would be an adverse effect on employment just when companies are struggling out of recession. An article in the Financial Times of 15 September gave many examples of what I mean. It said:
A major UK steelworks would have to spend about £55m to meet the 90 decibel norm, and £145m to get down to 85. A shoe factory employing 350 people would have to spend £300,000 to reduce machinery noise to 85 decibels. A cable-making factory employing 1,900 people would need to spend £500,000 to meet an 85 decibel limit.
The cost of meeting a 90 decibel limit in a heavy chemical plant employing 100 people would be £1·5m, reaching 85 would cost £3·5m.
Some industries, such as paper and board and textiles, fear that productivity could suffer severely because machinery might have to run more slowly to reduce noise.
Estimating the cost to British industry of such reductions in noise is extremely difficult. The Confederation of British Industry has suggested a total of £1 billion. Estimates of job losses are much harder to make. In the timber and woodworking industry, noise is a special problem. There is one such company in my constituency in which job losses can be estimated. The general manager of Burt Boulton (Timber) Ltd, Mr. Bob Garton, wrote to me this week saying:
the jobs of over 100 people will be at stake if we are forced to comply with the 85 decibel limit. With some of our woodworking machines, this level is not achievable and the technology is not available to further reduce noise at source. If this lower level does become law it would be totally uneconomic for us to work and we would not be able to sustain the continued losses that it would cause.
One cannot be much clearer than that. That company would be hard hit, even though woodworking establishments in Britain are already subject to statutory noise limits under regulation 44 of the Woodworking and Machines Regulations 1974. It requires reduction of noise to the greatest extent that is reasonably practical and the provision and use of ear protectors where people are likely to be exposed to noise at or about 90 decibels. It is interesting that even that noise limit is impossible to achieve on 40 per cent. of existing woodworking machinery. Such machines have a life of about 20 years.
Improvements have been achieved on band resaws at a cost of £500 to £2,000 per machine by the enclosure method, but that leads to loss of production. The technology to reduce noise by engineering means is simply not available. The timber trade wants a prescribed maximum noise level of 90 decibels rather than 85 decibels. I am told that extensive research by the CBI and other organisations has shown that severe hearing loss does not begin to occur in any numbers until there is continued

exposure to noise levels above 90 decibels. There have been very few claims for industrial deafness, as hearing protection of a high standard is provided and the work force in the timber industry is well educated to wear that protection.
Secondly, and notwithstanding what I said about the sense of the work force——

Mr. Nicholas Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne, East;): Will the hon. Gentleman tell us what evidence he is quoting?

Mr. Colvin: I am quoting anecdotal evidence from a company in my constituency and evidence produced by the CBI and the woodworking industry. It is anecdotal evidence. I cannot give statistical evidence. If statistical evidence had been prepared, I am sure that it would he available, but it is not.
I should also like a specific duty to be placed on employees to wear the protection that is provided. It should be acknowledged that hearing protection is a perfectly adequate and acceptable means of complying with any legislation, whatever level of noise is agreed.
If a limit below 90 decibels is set, the lead- in time should be at least 20 years, and financial assistance should be given to the manufacturers of woodworking machinery to aid research into noise reduction. Dare I suggest that that might be one way in which we could get back from the EC some of the excess money that we now pay into the Common Market budget.
Lastly, I hope that the trade will be assured that compliance with any directive in other EC countries is as high as it is in the United Kingdom. There is plenty of anecdotal evidence to show that our European partners are nothing like as strict as we are in enforcing regulations.

Mr. Cowans: I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's speech, and I have much sympathy with what he says. He gave many statistics—I do not complain about that—but can he give the one that is missing from his case: how much is industrial deafness costing the National Health Service and the nation? If he can do that, he will put the other statistics into context.

Mr. Colvin: I shall leave it to the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Cowans), when he makes his own speech, to give that figure. I am sure that he has it in his pocket.
I want to say a word about the current situation in Europe on the draft directive. The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection, has now produced a report on the draft, and has recommended that the action level be reduced from 85 decibels to the 90 decibels proposed by industry in this country. As a rider to its report, however, it states that hearing protection should be worn at noise levels over 85 decibels. The opinion of several Members of the European Parliament is that that report will be accepted by the European Parliament, but the final decision on the directive will, of course, remain with the Council of Ministers. If the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), puts the case for the United Kingdom, I trust that he will bear in mind not only the wording of this motion, which I support, but the suggestions that I have put to the House about the important timber and woodworking industry. I am sure that he will fight his corner hard on behalf of those whom we represent.

Mr. Jack Ashley: I strongly disagree with much of what the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) said. He has put forward the classical arguments of the employers and raised every conceivable objection to any real progress or significant progress that is necessary. When he quotes the figures and the damage that can be caused, he should consider not only the noise levels but the numbers of workers who are exposed to those noise levels. Of course, there are fewer at the higher level, but there are millions at the lower level. We are concerned about those people, as well as those who are at greater risk.
I welcome the change in attitude to deafness, which has been a seriously neglected handicap. The growing awareness of the problem is warmly welcomed. I also welcome the EEC recommendation of an 85 decibel level. However, the good old CBI suggests a 90 decibel level. Trust the CBI to go for the worst for the workers. Trust the CBI to go for the employers and to do anything at the expense of the workers. That is a typical CBI attitude. I hope that hon. Members will disregard the CBI.
I was disgusted that the Minister should say that the Government are determined to see that any final directive shall not place unecessary or uncompetitive burdens on industry. That sounds fine, but it only considers one side of industry. When the Minister speaks of competition he should bear in mind the possible damage to workers' health when only one side of the equation is considered.
It is estimated that about 500,000 people could be helped if the level is set as the CBI suggest, but 2,500,000 people could be helped if we set the level at 85 decibels. Even that level is inadequate. My union, by which I am proud to be sponsored — the General, Municipal, Boilermakers and Allied Trades Union — has declared that 80 decibels should be recorded as "threshold of harm". It is right. Professor Coles, of the Institute of Hearing Research has said that that is the only completely safe level.
I do not suggest that the problem can be solved overnight. I do not think that any magic wand is available. No one suggests that we should place burdens on industry which cause collapse. However, the hearing of men and women in industry is being sacrificed for cash. That is the basic issue. Their hearing is being stolen simply for cash. We must face the fact that decisive action is required.
The CBI has been moaning for years about every type of progress. I know members of the CBI and one or two are good personal friends, but it is one of the worst organisations in Great Britain in terms of industrial progress. Every conceivable objection is put in the way of workers by the CBI. The CBI is like a bookmaker who always whines about his losses. The CBI is always moaning about the problems and the terrible cost of helping workers with safety. I hope that the Minister will disregard the CBI's rubbishy proposals.
I challenge employers and Conservative Members. They talk about the undue burdens of competitiveness. Why should not we in Britain adopt the EEC level of 85 decibels? What is wrong with British industry that it cannot compete in Europe? Is our management so incompetent that it must have the subsidy of deafening workers so that it can compete with its European counterparts? The argument for refusing to accept 85 decibels is nonsense.

Mr. Charles Wardle: Will the right hon. Gentleman present his evidence to suggest that other member states of the European Community are in favour of a level of 85 dB(A)?

Mr. Ashley: If I may so, that is a silly question. Each side has asked the other for its evidence. It is rather like asking whether someone has stopped beating his wife. Has the hon. Gentleman stopped beating his wife? That is the sort of question which the hon. Gentleman has asked. It was a naive question because he knows that the relevant document is being considered by all EC members. The Minister told him, if the hon. Gentleman was listening, that he would listen to this debate and to the debates in the EEC. If the EEC countries accept the document, and I believe that they will, there is no reason why we should refuse to accept it.
I hope that the Government will move on this issue. If they do not, the consequences for workers in Britain will be extremely serious. Workers whose hearing is damaged receive only derisory damages from the courts. There are some of us who are determined to step up the fight to obtain proper compensation, and my union and others share that determination. However, that is second-best compensation. We want to prevent the damage in the first place. I hope that the Minister will look favourably upon the moves to prevent damage to workers' hearing.

Mr. Andrew Hunter: I shall comply with your wish, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and make my contribution as brief as possible, unenviable though my task is in taking up the remarks of the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley).
I shall start by making three brief assertions. First, I accept and share the laudable objectives of the proposals that are before us. The letter from the Commission to the President of the Council refers to the objectives of
limiting exposure to noise and making provision for health surveillance of workers whose exposure is likely to exceed the limit.
Secondly, I accept the principle of harmonisation in this sphere of Community activity. There is a universality of health and safety care and in this area there can be no national frontiers. Harmonisation lays an equal burden on all member states and promotes equality of opportunity in competition.
Harmonisation regulates the market within the EC for the manufacturers of what can conveniently but somewhat flippantly be called "noisy machines".
I am consciously but voluntarily voicing the interests of the timber and sawmill industry, which has strong interests in my constituency of Basingstoke. Having said that I move on to suggest that there are inherent weaknesses in the proposals that are before us.
First, I am doubtful whether the proposals are what they claim to be or what they set out to be. They are not a harmonisation of national laws, they are an intensification. They are not an approximation of national laws, they are an extension. The reduction to 85 decibels is stricter than any existing national legislation; and the proposals on audiometry are stricter likewise than any existing national legislation. It is my understanding that there is no existing national legislation on noise anywhere in the Community which requires audiometric surveillance to the standards laid down in the proposals; nor is there any legislation in


any Community country requiring technical or organisational measures to be taken to reduce sound exposure level to 85 decibels or even to levels between 85 and 90 decibels throughout industry and without exception.
I turn to the second inherent weakness in the proposals. With respect to the hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans), I am attracted by the argument that the proposals overstate the risks of damage to hearing in the 85 to 90 decibel range.
A recent survey has established that only 3 per cent. of people who have been exposed for 40 years to a noise level of 85 decibles have suffered adversely.

Mr. John Evans: Will the hon. Gentleman observe the normal practice of stating the source from which he obtains the information?

Mr. Hunter: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that the survey was produced for the CBI earlier this year.
Surveys in other member states do not reveal any evidence of substantial hearing loss from exposure to the 85 to 90 decibel range. Moreover, I have had the good fortune to read some of the letters sent to some hon. Members by the Department of Employment, which assert:
The justification for setting this exposure limit"—
that is, 85 decibels
has not been established.
Moreover the proposals deal statistically with a category called "perceptible handicap.". That is defined as a 15 decibel loss averaged over one, two and three kiloherts; but no such loss nor such a category is recognised either by the World Health Organisation or the International Standards Organisation. The proposals should therefore be discarded as irrelevant.
Thus, I would argue that to conform with the accepted Community approach and to ensure that effort and resources are devoted to tackling the priority area of hazard, the Commission's proposals for Community legislation should continue to seek to secure that the maximum sound exposure limit is 90 and not 85 decibels.
The third inherent weakness in the proposals is that practical difficulties are ignored. First, the Government, despite the comments of Opposition Members, should bear in mind that noise surveys and audiometric surveillence will impose an excessive administrative burden on employers, especially on "outside" works such as building sites, shipyards, farms and quarries.

Mr. John Evans: Tell us about the shipyards.

Mr. Hunter: Secondly, the technical measures required to reduce noise to 85 rather than to 90 decibels would be costly in design and manufacturer of enclosures and in modifications at source, as I have learnt in my constituency.
My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) said that the estimated cost of reducing the noise level to 85 decibels exceeded El billion. I understand that 1·7 million people are employed in that category. To reduce and maintain a noise level of 90 decibels would affect 0·7 million people and the cost would be barely £0·5 billion. I submit that as we emerge from recession to increase the burden on industry by £0·5 billion would border on insanity.
Thirdly, the requirements of the proposals would endanger the viability of some industries, especially the

timber and saw mill industry in my constituency of Basingstoke. This would be in an even more disadvantageous position in tackling non-EC competition. My conclusion, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is that the proposals are noble and laudable in principle and aspiration, but they are unacceptable in detail.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: I am glad to have the chance to speak in the debate. I am interested in industrial health and safety matters and noise is of considerable importance to my constituents, particularly those who work in shipbuilding and heavy engineering.
I was glad that the Minister acknowledged that deafness is a disability which is often treated with a lack of seriousness or understanding by those who do not suffer from it. Hearing loss isolates its victims and denies them much of the richness of human existence. When it is an illness, we have a duty to try to understand the victim's hurt and to respond generously. When it is a disability which we allow to be induced in substantial numbers of working people, we have a duty to feel shame at our complacency to date. We also have a duty to respond wholeheartedly to the European Commission document and to accept its contents.
One adult in six can expect to suffer some form of noise-induced hearing loss during his or her working life. Of course, those in some industries are far more susceptible than others.
Before becoming an hon. Member, I was a full-time official with the GMBATU, serving its northern region. Among my many responsibilities, I was responsible for the region's 4,000 potential common law claims. mostly covered by the Iron and Steel Trades Insurers and all relating to noise-induced industrial deafness.
The common law aspect is important in any debate on industrial health and safety, but equally important from the victim's point of view is the financial solvency and freedom from state interference of his or her trade union. The trade union movement is the only effective force in our society for challenging employers on behalf of working people who have no substantial resources of their own and have suffered injury.
The common law is important, because it is the vehicle for obtaining financial compensation for the usually irreversible injury. Recent court cases in Newcastle on noise-induced industrial deafness in shipbuilding are very important. The court found that there had been no contributory negligence by the employees, that there had been a breach of duty by the employers towards the employees, that the Limitation Act 1980 did not bar trade union members from having their cases heard and that working people in the shipbuilding industry had been exposed to excessive noise. Those findings were all in favour of the injured parties— the working people in shipbuilding.
However, the court also found that the date of guilty knowledge—when employers could be held first to have been aware that by exposing their employees to noise they were causing them injury—was 1963. The court made that finding in spite of the fact that the medical profession is on record as having identified noise-induced industrial deafness at least as long ago as 1952.
The Newcastle judgment holds that employers could not have been expected to know about noise-induced industrial deafness before 1963, so they were not negligent in exposing their employees to it before that date.
Many industries have employment patterns that fluctuate by generation. That is true of shipbuilding and, to a lesser extent, of heavy engineering. There is a considerable group of working people in those industries who suffer from industrial deafness that was noise-induced before 1963 and they will be unable to gain any financial compensation for their injury. I mean financial compensation through the common law rather than through the social security provisions. Those circumstances will never arise again, but I ask the Minister to consider the plight of the older industrial workers who are denied compensation through the common law for their injury.
I urge the Government to introduce a scheme, similar to that introduced for the sufferers from pneumoconiosis under a previous Government, to ensure that those injured prior to 1963 — the date of guilty knowledge— obtain some financial recompense for the permanent disability that they now endure. Financial compensation is no substitute for the prevention of injury, but in those cases the injuries have already been caused and those who have been hurt are entitled to financial compensation. I hope that the Government will treat that argument seriously.
I welcome the Council document that we are discussing, including the proposed directive. I welcome the emphasis on noise reduction, supplemented by ear defenders. I firmly believe that inducing the worker to be more careful is no substitute for providing a safer environment.
I also welcome the commitment to regular audiometric examination, but with a reservation. The document provides for workers suffering from noise-induced industrial deafness to be removed in some circumstances from the job, and provided with another job if possible. Caution is called for here. In some industries, suitable alternative employment will not be available, and we are therefore discussing the possibility of depriving a man of his livelihood.
The document contains a valuable commitment to explanation and to consultation with employees. Like our health and safety at work legislation, it gives employees a duty to co-operate. That whole section of the document is valuable, and not just the "Put your ear-muffs on" part of it or—as the Minister might say—the "Take the plugs out of your nose and put them in your ear" part. I hope that the Government will accept the whole section, and its implications, rather than just part of it.
The Minister said that the daily dose limit was a key issue. I understand that the Government's view is that it should be above 85 decibels and—although the Minister did not state this—below 90 decibels. The Minister said he intended to consider specific evidence and might even move towards a sliding scale. I shall follow the matter with interest. I hope that the Minister will consider the evidence that the GMBATU will wish to put forward, advocating a threshold limit of 80 decibels, as well as considering evidence from industry advocating a much higher threshold. The difference is not marginal. Decibels do not increase in an arithmetical progression, and 90 decibels is more than twice as loud as 85.

Mr. Hunter: Four times.

Mr. Brown: That is right. I applaud the Minister's commitment to noise reduction, as opposed to protection, which is a considerable advance. It was called forth earlier in the debate when the commitment of our European partners to a threshold of 85 decibels was called into question. I refer hon. Members to the document under discussion. Page 4 of the explanatory memorandum says:
In the Federal Republic of Germany, accident prevention provisions make the reduction of exposure to noise compulsory, where the equivalent continuous level exceeds 85 dB(A).
On the same page it is stated:
In France, the … labour code … states that the intensity of noise must be kept at a level which is not damaging to health; 85 and 90 dB(A) are laid down as warning and danger levels respectively".
There is, therefore, a commitment to 85 decibels in the two major Common Market countries.
I do not want to end on a churlish note. I welcome the Minister's attitude. It is not everything that the Opposition would wish for, but it is a considerable step forward by the Conservative party.

12 midnight

Mr. Charles Wardle: Before I refer to certain aspects of the proposed European Directive with particular reference to the engineering industry, may I say how encouraging it is that from the outset there has been general agreement among hon. Members that industrial noise can be an extremely serious problem unless efforts are made continually to reduce its effect?
I must confess that I am associated with the company to which my hon. Friend the Minister referred where a lady was wearing her ear plugs up her nose. I assure the Minister that everyone else wears his ear plugs in the right place.
As hon. Members have said repeatedly during the debate, noise is an occupational risk for hundreds of thousands of workers each day of their working lives, which can result in lasting damage to their hearing. As such it is properly regarded by employers and employees' representatives on the safety committees of most manufacturing companies as a danger to be kept at bay.
Although noise is an old problem in industry, there has been a growing awareness of the threat to hearing, and a great deal has been achieved to increase protection. The current code of practice was drawn up before the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 was passed. Factory inspectors have not been lax in encouraging the application of the code.
In 1981 the Health and Safety Executive published a challenging consultative document on noise protection. The fact that the draft of the European directive has captured attention has kept the subject alive. That must be a good thing because the more publicity there is about industrial noise the greater awareness there will be of its dangers.
What can be made of that awareness falls into two categories. First, workers can be encouraged and required in their own interests to wear ear guards. That means more than the occasional reminder on a works notice board. It calls for permanent warning signs about noise protection zones, an adequate supply and choice of reliable equipment and materials, and a disciplinary procedure followed with equal zeal by supervision and shop stewards without exception, even for visitors who briefly look into a factory.
Secondly, numerous remedial steps can be taken to reduce noise by what the Commission calls "technical means". Although the cost of enclosing large machines already set down on the shop floor — for example, power presses and heading machines — is prohibitive during a recession, and in some cases, such as with forging hammers, it is downright impossible with the technology available, many small improvements can be made. The use of insulating materials, ducting, cushioning to reduce vibration, lining to muffle hoppers and feed chutes, the replacement of worn parts and a changed lay out for plant and machinery cna bring significant benefits to the working environment.
Much is being done in those directions by British industry, but no one would dispute that further progress is desirable. The Health and Safety Commission, the CBI and, I think, the TUC would agree with most member countries that a directive on occupational noise control is needed and that legislation should be harmonised throughout the Community. As the proposal stands, however, that is in some peril. Accepted practice on noise control in most member states, with the possible exception of France, is based on 90 decibels as an action level. The directive proposes an action level of 85 decibels. The difference between 85 and 90 may not seem large, but 90 decibels is the equivalent to the noise of a bulldozer at about 10 metres range and 85 decibels represents the sound of a typical car radio being played normally. Whereas about 700,000 men and women work in noise conditions of 90 decibels or more, the number working at 85 decibels is much greater—probably another 1 million people.
The administrative costs of enforcing controls including audiometry would be enormous at the lower limit, but the CBI, supported by an opinion of the Royal College of Physicians. suggests that the evidence of risk to hearing from prolonged exposure to noise levels below 90 decibels is uncertain, to say the least. My evidence for that is a note from the safety policy division of the Health and Safety Commission.

Mr. Greville Janner: Does the CBI brief indicate the cost to the nation of deafness caused to people at work who are exposed to the noise levels that would exist on the basis of his recommendation but not on the basis of the draft directive?

Mr. Wardle: If the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) has some figures with which he can quantify what he said, will he enlighten the House? As I understand the CBI recommendation, it is that we tackle what is practical with all practical haste. That approach is the most sensible one. Hon. Members who are involved in industry want to do all they can to see that noise protection is increased, but let us deal with practicalities.
If the proposed European directive were to call for action at 90 decibels, industry would inevitably have to meet considerable costs. I believe the target would be accepted as realistic and worthwhile and genuine efforts would continue to be made to bring about the necessary improvements. That would be an action level for special noise protection measures that I believe would be met with approval throughout the European Community, whereas at 85 decibels the viability of many engineering processes —indeed, of companies—would immediately be called into question with consequential effects on employment,

a point already alluded to, not only because of the huge capital cost of the noise protection systems involved, but because it would result in slower tooling changes, greater machine down-time and further loss of competitiveness.
The proposed directive also calls for audiometry tests at 85 decibels as a mandatory requirement. That remains an imprecise technique that can only monitor deterioration in a person's hearing after damage has been done. I suggest the technique should be employed at a considerably higher decibel level, perhaps 105 decibels, as the CBI recommends.
I think that the TUC is mistaken to resist the introduction of audiometry tests. I hope that what could be a very useful initiative by the European Commission will not undermine its own value and purpose from the start by setting unrealistic goals. The Health and Safety Commission and the CBI feel that other member states, including Germany, Holland and Denmark, recognise this possibility, and they are worried by it. It is too ambitious as it stands and will bring discredit to a campaign about noise protection that is widely recognised as important to all those who work in British industry.

Mr. David Penhaligon: I wish the House had heard fewer speeches defending the position of the CBI. I exempt the Minister from that remark because his speech faced up to both sides of the issue rather well.
I object to the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) comparing the damage caused by high noise levels with the damage that may be experienced at a young Conservative Christmas concert. That was an outrage and an insult to those people who work at high noise levels not just for one evening a year or, if the enthusiasm is maintained, for one evening in two consecutive years, but for 40 hours of the week year after year. To make that the opening gambit of one's speech in defending some of the exemptions that I suspect will be required indicates how serious the intention of the hon. Member is and his lack of good will in trying to solve the problem.
In a previous incarnation, I worked for a company that manufactured rock drills. At one time, as an employee of that company, I had to measure the noise level of a rock drill in what is called a closed end in a hard rock mine. We recorded 132 decibels, and my colleagues and I were working in that noise without ear muffs. As a young man, I was rather more prepared than were some of my colleagues to express a view. I told the manager what he could do if he thought that I would again expose myself to 132 decibels. Ear muffs appeared and I am glad to say that after a bit of bludgeoning, everybody in that department used ear muffs.
That example convinces me that compulsion is required in this matter. Many of the people with whom I worked had put up with that degree of noise for a decade or more. They insisted that they were not deaf, but one had to shout at them to make them hear. Often they were not aware of the damage that they had experienced and, as has been pointed out, the tragedy is the deterioration of life as time goes by. It means that their deafness will get worse, even if they are not exposed to such noise in future. Legislation is required and compulsion and pressure must be imposed by those in authority because of the reluctance that undoubtedly exists.
The argument is really between 85 and 90 decibels. I suspect that some Conservative Members who have


spoken in the debate would not recognise a dB if it walked in through the door of the Chamber. I cannot believe that they have asked people to set up an example of noise at 85, 90 and 100 decibels so as to obtain an appreciation of the differences. It is recognised that between 85 and 90 there is an energy factor of three and that even if we were to compromise somewhere between the two—say, at 87 to 90 — that would represent half the energy level reaching the ears.
I support the European approach to the subject. We should fix a low level — perhaps one that we admit cannot be achieved now in certain industries—so that those who cannot meet that requirement must argue for an exemption. If, for technical reasons, such exemption is granted, the industry concerned should be made to monitor the noise levels that the people concerned experience. I cannot see anything wrong with that approach.
I assure the Minister, speaking as an engineer, that if the pressure and determination exist, the companies that manufacture the products that create the noise will have every economic reason to increase their research and development to overcome the technical problems. I fear that without such continual pressure — without the determination on the part of Governments throughout Europe to reduce noise levels in the end—little progress will be made.
While I would not support every aspect of it, I find the European document interesting and fundamental and we should agree that, on the whole, it is a good rather than a bad document. I hope that something like it will become the law of the land in the near future.

Mr. Gummer: Many hon. Members have wanted to take part in the debate. Perhaps we can have an opportunity at some future time to extend the discussion, because it is clear that this is a subject to which we must return.

Mr. John Evans: I welcome the Minister's opening remarks. I hope that he will persuade his colleagues to bring the matter back to the Floor of the House soon. I also hope that he will persuade them to have it debated at a more reasonable hour.

Mr. Gummer: That is a matter not for me but for the Leader of the House. I will use what influence I have to bring the hon. Gentleman's comment to his attention—perhaps in relation to the general subject rather than this specific matter — for it is clear that hon. Members regard this as a subject of great importance.
The comments that have been made show that there is a wide degree of support for action. Real arguments have been advanced about some parts of the Commission's recommendation. The comment of the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) might receive support in many parts of the House in that, in general, it is a good proposal because it seeks to achieve an aim that we can all applaud. There are things which are difficult. I agree that we have to have a balance between the two pressures. Perhaps I may put it this way. If it is shown that action should be taken to save people's hearing, then that action ought to be taken. The argument is not about that but about the level at which action should be taken and the level at which damage is done.
The problem of the decibel scale and the way in which it is measured is difficult. One decibel makes an appreciable difference. That is why I was careful to say that I am listening to people's views and that I am not suggesting that it is a simple choice between those two figures. The two figures are so far apart that the idea that it can be treated in that way is wrong.
As an old-fashioned Anglo-Catholic, to be called an evangelical by my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) was unusual. I hope that he will not take too much to heart the figures about how much money it might cost. They are all based upon the principle that every machine has to be altered and every alteration has to be made when the proposals would enable people to wear hearing protection if that were the only reasonabale way of dealing with the problem.
It is not as unreasonable a proposal as some people have tried to suggest. I still do not think that it fits the bill. I still hold the reservations which I mentioned. I should not like industry to feel that this is so unreasonable because it has not looked at the two key phrases. One is "reasonably practicable". We have a clear view in English law where we are about it. Secondly, some people have not considered that it is not laid down that noise attenuation is the only way to come within the rules. It can be done by the not as satisfactory and, in my view, second-best method of the use of the kind of ear muffs which saved the hon. Member for Truro from the damage done in the rock cutting industry.
It is always of value to us when we hear the personal concern of the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) in this matter. Would he in that spirit take one word from me? Some of us have tried hard in this area. Many people in the Health and Safety Commission and in the Health and Safety Executive are working hard on it. Occasionally it is important to give them plaudits for what they are trying to do rather than always suggesting that everything is bad. Many people in the Confederation of British Industry have supported me strongly in the efforts that I have made to try to do something about this. The CBI is not the organisation that the right hon. Gentleman drew it to be. Many in it have worked hard in this area and I give them considerable credit for it. I want to support them and thank them for what they are doing rather than suggest that everybody is of the kind that he suggested.

Mr. Ashley: There was a pinch of salt about it.

Mr. Gummer: I merely suggested that it sounded as if it were more than a pinch of salt at the time.
The point my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) made about 85 decibels is important. There is a real argument—not one that we can hide—about the point at which damage is done. We cannot ignore it. I am not saying that that leads us inevitably to 90 decibels, but it means that 85 decibels is not the fixed figure which some people suggest that it should be. Those who seek a different level need not do so because they wish to grind the workers or any other section of the community to the ground. It may be that they are trying to get the right level. We should have further discussion on that and try to come to an answer.
I was pleased to hear the contribution of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown), who has taken a particular interest in this. I shall consider


his proposition. We had the pneumoconiosis debate this morning. I am pleased that once again in that area we have been able to raise the question of the compensation amounts. There has been a considerable advantage there.
A great deal has already been done about compensation, In October the Department of Health and Social Security announced improvements in the compensation available. The whole House will agree that there have also been important improvements in the ease with which compensation can be obtained.
The period over which noise must have been suffered has been shortened and the extension of the provisions to people who have worked around rather than just with machines removed an artificial and damaging restriction. The Government have done a great deal already, but I appreciate that many people wish us to go further. I shall certainly study the proposals made by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle) was right to say that a great deal was being done and to point out that the hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) was unwittingly a little misleading. Under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act the code of practice has been successfully used in court to establish that employers have not carried out their health and safety responsibilities and they can be fined heavily as a result.
In this context, the Health and Safety Commission has announced that after this campaign for getting to know more and spreading the gloomy news about the effect of noise we shall be much tougher in imposing the existing rules.

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion,MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business)

Question agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 10322/82 setting out proposals for a Council Directive on the protection of workers from the risks related to exposure to noise at work and of the Department of Employment's explanatory memorandum of 1st December 1983; and welcomes the Government's intention to seek agreement on harmonised, practicable and enforceable legislation to minimise those risks without imposing unreasonable burdens.

Orders of the Day — Nursing Sister (Dismissal)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Major.]

Mr. Harry Ewing: In more than 30 years' experience in trade union and political work the case that I raise today is one of the worst instances of industrial persecution that I have ever come across. It concerns one of my constituents, a nursing sister whom I shall not name, employed at Falkirk royal infirmary but dismissed as the result of a disciplinary hearing on 11 November.
That hearing was preceded by a bizarre history. The nursing sister's troubles started when in the recent general election campaign she organised a photograph for the election address of my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan). When the election address was published, the sister was sent for and reprimanded for organising the photograph.
I must put it on record that it appears from m) inquiries that, although some of the nurses in the photograph—taken outside the outpatients department of the infirmary—were on their normal tea break, others had left their posts. I do not defend that, and my constituent, the nursing sister, accepts that she was entitled to be reprimanded for that incident.
As I unfold the sad story, however, it will be clear that those responsible for reprimanding the sister for organising the photograph had made up their minds from that point onwards to ensure that in one way or another this lady's excellent service to the infirmary over many years would be brought to an end and, if at all possible, her character, reputation and nursing standing damaged in the process.
Within days of the reprimand for organising the photograph, a search—more accurately, a check—was carried out of the drug cupboard on the ward for which the nursing sister was responsible. Two 50-tablet bottles of sulphur tablets were missing. When the nursing sister was confronted with the fact that those bottles were missing, she immediaterly admitted that she had taken them. She explained that she took them on a Sunday, that a member of her family suffered from an illness that was treated by sulphur tablets, and that because a doctor was not available to give a prescription, and she could not obtain the tablets from the chemist, she had taken them from the drugs cupboard. She openly admitted that.
The nursing sister was immediately suspended, and the senior nursing officer and the nursing officer of Falkirk royal infirmary reported my constituent to the police. When she came to see me, I immediately wrote to the secretary of Forth valley health board complaining that this lady was being persecuted. I had no doubt of that. I asked in that letter how many such incidents had been reported to the police during a given number of years. The secretary replied that, first, the board did not accept my charge that the lady was being persecuted—I still maintain that she was — and, secondly, that only two cases during that number of years had been reported to the police.
This lady then suffered the humiliation of being taken from her home to the police station at Falkirk and being put through the usual severe interrogation that such cases normally attract. She was subsequently charged with stealing a substantial quantity of drugs—not just the two bottles to which she had admitted, although they formed


part of the charge, but a host of other drugs that had apparently gone missing, not only from the ward for which the sister was responsible, but from other wards in the hospital where, at one time or another, she had worked.
The case came to Falkirk sheriff court in October this year. The case had been in progress for some time when, on 6 October, the sheriff decided that he was not satisfied with the prosecution's evidence, and suspended the case, saying that he would recall it a fortnight later. I understand that he did so to give the prosecution an opportunity to put its evidence in a better and more cohesive fashion and, if possible, to provide a stronger basis for the prosecution.
The case was recalled on 24 October, and it is significant that the sheriff then gave the nursing sister an absolute discharge. The Falkirk Herald is an active local paper, which reports without fear or favour—although I do not always agree with what it says—but it did not consider the case to be sufficiently significant or important as to warrant being reported
To many, if not all, fair-minded people, that would have been the end of the matter. The Forth valley health board, the senior nursing officer and the nursing officer at the royal infirmary thought that they would get their pound of flesh by pursuing this case through the courts, but they failed.
One would have thought that the absolute discharge would have been the end of the matter, but on 11 November a disciplinary hearing was convened at Falkirk royal infirmary, taken by the senior nursing officer and the nursing officer, and my constituent was dismissed. She appealed against her dismissal on 18 November, a week later. That is some weeks ago, and I spoke to my constituent tonight before I came into the House to check that the position was still the same. She has still not been told when the appeal will be heard and, as I understand it, she has not even had an acknowledgement from the Forth valley health board, or anything to say that the appeal has been lodged. It is now 7 December and my constituent still remains dismissed, with no salary or job, and still suffering the trauma of what the Forth valley health board had subjected her to.
Furthermore, an interesting feature of the case is that throughout the lady has been represented by Miss Martin, the legal adviser to the Royal College of Nursing, who has done an excellent job for my constituent. I place on record my gratitude for the vigorous representation that the college has provided for my constituent. As I understand it, the college asked the health board for copies of the documents used at the disciplinary hearing on 11 November, but up till Monday, although I did not check this again today, the documents had not been provided. I suspect that the health board is deliberately withholding copies of the documents because it is afraid that the college might have passed the documents to me to use in the debate. Significantly, at the disciplinary hearing some of the documents used in the court case were not produced. Since the date of the dismissal, no date has been given for hearing the appeal.
Since 15 June, six months ago—not six weeks or six days—this excellent nurse has been persecuted. During the court proceedings a number of consultants at the infirmary, without any coaxing or requests, voluntarily wrote letters to the sheriff clerk giving character references for my constituent, because they knew the value of her

work in the infirmary. They knew that better than the Johnnies-come-lately who have been persecuting this lady since she arranged the photographs for my hon. Friend's election address.
It is a scandal that this should happen, and it should not be tolerated in our civilised society. This lady has given outstanding service to her profession for many years. Her one aim in life is to make sure that sick people are healed and made well again. Nursing was the profession which she entered in England after leaving school, and she has served in it ever since, only to be treated in this fashion at this stage in her career. Six months of persecution and still no sign of when it will come to an end. If, in the present run-up to Christmas and the New Year, the appeal is not heard, we can imagine that it will be January, possibly even February, before it is. What way is that to treat someone who has given such loyal service?
In disciplined services such as nursing and the police, there is no question of double jeopardy. This is a case in which, because the employers were not able to achieve the objective which they set out to attain in June—proving the lady's guilt—they decided to call another form of court, or hearing as it was called, and dismissed the lady, having failed to have her dismissed after reporting her to the police. I cannot remember a case such as this in the five and a half years during which I was a health Minister.
It might be a forlorn hope, but I would wager that if the Labour party had won the June general election the case would never have arisen. There is more politics in this case than anything else. If those who have handled the case had thought that a Labour Administration would have occupied New St. Andrew's house after June, I bet that the case would have been forgotten. The drugs incident was sparked off as a result of the lady's persecution.
The Minister will tell me in his reply that the appeal procedure has not been exhausted. I am aware of that. The earlier stages of the appeal procedure could have been exhausted if the Forth valley health board had got off its lazy backside and tried to do something for the lady instead of pillorying her. It has no interest in helping her. Had it been interested in her, the first stage of the appeal procedure could have been completed by now. I am anxious to influence that appeal. If it fails, I am even more anxious to influence the subsequent appeal that will be made to the Secretary of State, for it is to him that the final appeal will be made. I hope that the Minister will not tell me that the appeal procedure has not been exhausted and that I am raising this issue on the Adjournment prematurely. There is not much point in closing the stable door after the horse has bolted. I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this matter, because I want to influence the appeal.
For the first time since I have been a Member, I am speaking above and beyond the House. I am speaking to senior nursing management at Falkirk royal infirmary and to senior management in the Forth valley health board. The latter body should never have allowed the matter to occur. It did not know that the lady had been reported to the police until I told it. It was left to local management to make the decision whether an employee should be reported to the police.
The senior nursing management at Falkirk royal infirmary and the health board should come to their senses, stop the persecution and bring justice to bear in this case. My constituent should be reinstated. Many of the patients


whom she has nursed and many of the consultants at the infirmary and others who know her well want her to be restored to her rightful position.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John MacKay): The hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) has amply demonstrated his concern over the circumstances which led to the dismissal of a sister at Falkirk royal infirmary, and I listened carefully to what he said.
The hon. Member is well aware that the general Whitley council disciplinary procedures on which the health boards' own procedures are based provide for an aggrieved party to appeal against dismissal, in the first instance to an appeals committee set up by the health board, but also, if she remains aggrieved thereafter, there is a further right of appeal to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. These are, of course, national guidelines within which health boards may determine locally their own arrangements and agree them with representatives of local staff interests. Within the Forth valley health board there are, I understand, provisions for successive appeals from hospital level to the district and area executive groups, and finally to the board itself.
It is for health boards to determine locally the extent of the authority of the various levels of management as regards disciplinary action. Serious disciplinary decisions in respect of nursing staff will be taken by senior nurse managers. Those managers are intimately concerned with staff management and are heavily engaged in decisions on the recruitment, training, deployment and operation of staff. They have all had experience of direct patient care, and know from first-hand how the service runs. They are also thoroughly au fait with Whitley agreements on terms and conditions of service and of the way that they operate. Staff counselling and professional development is one of their responsibilities. I am confident that the staff who are taking disciplinary decisions are experienced both in the running of hospitals and in the use of disciplinary procedures.

Mr. Ewing: May I intervene to put an important point? Does the Minister think it satisfactory for any member of staff, leaving aside my constituent, to appeal against a disciplinary decision on 18 November and by 7 December still not know when the appeal is to be held?

Mr. MacKay: I shall come to that in a moment.
There is no doubt that disciplinary procedure is a specialist area, and for that reason it is general practice for health boards to employ a special personnel nurse at senior level, who is available for advice and guidance on nurse personnel matters. Each board also has its personnel officer who is concerned with the totality of personnel work covering all grades and all disciplines, and he, or she, too, is available for advice and guidance. In addition, boards have access to the central legal office of the Common Services Agency, from which they can seek legal advice, if that is thought necessary.
It is, of course, important that appeals should be made and heard quickly. The Whitley procedures recommend that any appeal by an employee should be lodged within three weeks of the receipt of written notice. The hearing of the appeal committee should be held within five weeks

of the receipt of the appeal, although boards may in exceptional circumstances be entitled to extend the period. In the case that concerns the hon. Member, an appeal has been lodged, as he said, and I understand that a hearing has been fixed for 22 December at district executive level. From his own experience in Government, the hon. Member will readily appreciate, therefore, that it would be improper of me to comment specifically upon the case or, indeed, to comment on the application of the agreed national disciplinary procedures to the case. To do so might well prejudice the outcome of her appeal. I am not prepared to risk that.
There is also a further complication. As the hon. Member is aware, the Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Act 1979 provided for the establishment of the United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting and four national boards, one in each of the four home countries. That Act lays responsibility for the regulation of the profession on those bodies, which are the successors of previous bodies like the General Nursing Council for Scotland. Rules made under the Act regulate how such cases should be dealt with. Cases where nurses have been the subject of court proceedings are referred to the National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting for Scotland, which, in terms of the 1979 Act, is responsible for investigating cases of alleged misconduct with a view to proceedings before the United Kingdom Central Council for a person to be removed from the register. It is possible that a further and separate course of professional action will be instituted against the sister. It would be quite improper to prejudice such an investigation by a discussion of the merits of the case in the House, no matter how well intentioned that discussion might be.
In those circumstances, I shall, therefore, confine my comments to the procedures which have been made for dealing with disciplinary action in respect of staff employed in the National Health Service. I shall also deal with the advice and guidance available to health boards when considering their action.
As I have explained, it is for health boards to design their own disciplinary proceedings and negotiate locally on them with staff interests. These procedures are, however, designed within the general framework of the procedures for staff employed within the NHS negotiated in the National Health Service Whitley council. As the hon. Member is aware, that council is comprised of members representing, on the one hand, Health Service management and, on the other, staff interests through the main professional organisations and NHS trade unions. The disciplinary procedures agreed by the general Whitley council are approved by the Secretary of State and form the basis for the conduct of the disciplinary action.
The procedures are well known. They are set out in full in the conditions of service handbook of the general Whitley council, copies of which are readily available to all NHS staff.
I should like to comment particularly on the arrangements made for appeals. The procedures are sensitive to the interests of the appellant and the provisions in respect of the composition of appeal committees have particular regard to the establishment of committees which are both impartial and knowledgeable of the appellant's area of work.
In the event of an appeal to the health board, the board is requested to set up an appeals committee consisting of not less than three members of the board. If possible, at


least one member of the committee should have a special knowledge of the employee's work. Where this is not possible in cases of appeal against dismissal the committee shall, at the request of the employee or his representative, appoint an assessor who is experienced in the particular discipline of the employee and who has not been directly involved in the circumstances leading to disciplinary action.
Similarly, the members of the appeal committee shall not include any member of the board of committee or subcommittee of the board who has been directly involved in the circumstances leading to disciplinary action.
The appellant has the right to appear personally before an appeals committee either alone or accompanied by a representative of his or her professional organisation or trade union. The hon. Member said tonight that his constituent is represented by an officer of the Royal College of Nursing. Those procedures have been in operation, largely unchanged, for some years. I am informed that there is no pressure upon the general Whitley council to review them, either from Health Service management or from staff interests.
In those circumstances, it is surely reasonable to conclude that the disciplinary arrangements have stood the test of time, are accepted by management and staff sides alike, are well capable of coping with cases which come before them and provide adequately for the representation of the interests of the aggrieved party.
An appeals mechanism sets out to ensure fair, impartial and knowledgeable hearings, and that culminates in the provision for an appeal to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I reiterate that for that reason it would be improper for me to comment on the circumstances as they affect this particular case. Moreover, the procedures neither take away an individual's rights under employment legislation nor deny him access to an industrial tribunal. He or she has the same rights in this respect as in any other area of employment.
I am not sure about double jeopardy that the hon. Member mentioned at Question Time. That principle prevents a person from being tried twice for the same offence before a criminal court. I do not think that that prevents an employee who has been tried by a criminal court from being subjected to his employer's disciplinary procedures, or vice versa. The principle extends much wider than nursing circles. The hon. Gentleman mentioned policemen. I am sure that he does not suggest that if a policeman is dismissed for assaulting a colleague or a superior he should not be involved in criminal proceedings, or vice versa.
If a lawyer embezzles a client's funds and one argues double jeopardy, one could say that he should be dismissed from his job, banned from the legal profession or face criminal proceedings. Such a person would face all three consequences.

Mr. Ewing: When a court has granted an absolute discharge or recorded a finding of not guilty, surely that should be the end of the matter. In this case an absolute discharge was granted, and then the board convened its court and sacked the lady. If a policeman is found not guilty of a criminal charge, the chief constable would not deal with that police officer.

Mr. MacKay: I listened to the hon. Gentleman's argument on that ground. I am not discussing whether the circumstances are right or wrong or that they would necessarily follow.
I trust that the hon. Gentleman will be content with the explanation that I have provided. I know that he is concerned about this case, and I regret, for the reasons that I have given, that it has been impossible for me to deal with it specifically. That is because an appeal is pending and because the sister has an ultimate right of appeal to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. As the hon. Gentleman conceded, in the event of an appeal to my right hon. Friend, the papers would come to me. However, I believe that it should be reassuring for him to know that we are dealing with an established disciplinary system. It is accepted by management and by staff, and I am content to let that system come to its conclusion. I am content also that responsibility for the application of disciplinary procedures is vested in the sound and experienced hands of senior nurses who have great experience in running the Health Service.
Safeguards are built in that ensure that aggrieved staff have the right of appeal to their health boards. The system is designed to ensure that appeals are handled in an informed and fair way and does not involve the torment of delay. There is provision for appeal ultimately to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. Appeals by aggrieved staff can focus both on the merits of particulars and on the application of the appropriate procedures to the case. Outwith the Health Service, too, the employee has the right of access to industrial tribunals under employment legislation——

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at nine minutes to One o'clock.